This 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.

New editors might get in less trouble if Be_bold had more rules in it instead of just "Go for it". It is discouraging when I do my best, adding references… And it is not good enough… I am supposed to discover a lot of rules by my self. Your link to all the rules should be the second thing in Wikipedia:Be bold. I could edit it myself, but it will be reverted, and I would become even less bold. ElectroWolf ( talk) 11:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

User:ElectroWolf what do you suggest adding to that page? It does state "Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted." Guidelines do vary somewhat by topic area. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not upset, just frustrated that I wasted my time, and more importantly; yours(plural). Some links to the rules of editing, would help the newbies avoid the most obvious mistakes, what you left on my talk was perfect, had that been on Wikipedia:Be bold, my edit would not be…

The same thing happened with Eau de nil, I fixed it, but startet out too bold. ElectroWolf ( talk) 06:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@ ElectroWolf:, I'm guessing this was about [1]. I recommend going to Google Scholar, searching for that 1984 article, and clicking the ( cited by (55 articles)) to find a secondary citation. Don't beat yourself up! Keep at it and stay bold.

As far as learning the rules, you're right: we don't have a good mentorship program, and most of the people who edit Wikipedia these days have been doing it for a long, long time (like over a decade in the case of myself and James, and that applies to many who touch medical articles). Feel free to hit me up if you want help; also open to jumping onto a chat (video / phone / whatever) to give you some tips.

Wikipedia has a longrunning civility program - I've generally described it to any potential newcomers with the caveat emptor that social interaction usually feels like a toxic workplace. I expect it will eventually die because of it, but maybe that won't be true if we can recruit new people who are better. I recommend reading some Stoic literature and practicing meditation! :) II | ( t - c) 03:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, 8 years and 100 edits, nothing compared to you(plural), which means that anything I causes you to write will in fact detract from Wikipedia… I will write an essay on ElectroWolf instead ;-) ElectroWolf ( talk) 06:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I had my first edits reverted. From what I remember I used primary instead of secondary sources. Yes Wikipedia takes time to figure out. But no harm in making a few small missteps along the way :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

That's better than me, my first edit involved preaching a bit against the Trinity doctrine in a Catholicism related article without citing any source. As a result I received a pretty template on my talk page. That was long ago, though. — Paleo Neonate – 07:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi DocJames. I am writing to you in regard to the oxytocin article, and proposed changes on its effect on feeding. Thank you for your feedback, i have some questions regarding this: - Most other references on this article are primary sources also, so when can a primary source be used (as they have been in the article), and when must secondary sources be used? Does this mean that all primary sources on this article should be removed? - What do you mean by saying that the medical journal "Frontiers", is a "predatory" source, and not very good? It has one of the highest impact factors in the field and this research is of notable interest to add to the information gap on oxytocins effect on feeding. Thank you for your time and i look forward to your reply. Kind Regards HeadDr ( talk) 03:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Generally secondary sources should be used. Yes I realize that their are a bunch of sources in that article which should be replaced by secondary sources. Add more primary ones does not solve the issue.

Frontiers Media has been listed as potentially predatory. Thus generally better to use another source. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "predatory"? Interested as an author in this journal 130.217.46.171 ( talk) 22:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

See Predatory publishing and Wikipedia:Vanity and predatory publishing. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Jacob Liberman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was created by a blocked sock and looks like fringe medicine. Something called syntonics, syntonic therapy or syntonic phototherapy? Several impressive sounding inventions like "Color Receptivity Trainer", "Spectral Receptivity Systems", the "Liberman Vis-Flex", and the "Eyeport Vision Training System" are mentioned. Thought you might want to have a look. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Bri I have tagged and trimmed that bit. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

was doing MEDMOS [2] on High-altitude pulmonary edema and seemed to 'trip' predatory journal filter the recent history [3] shows student editing [4]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ozzie10aaaa you manage to fix it? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

[5]...yes, however the student(as above)or whomever introduced it should be advised...IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Certainly have done so. We have this {{ student}} to help with this :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Your reversion prompted me to review WP:MEDRS. I think I should have been alert to the notion that the source is still a primary source even though it's a 160000 enrolled randomized clinical trial done by American Psychiatric Association.

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources: If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study. Given time a review will be published, and the primary sources should preferably be replaced with the review. Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability.

I appreciate your patience and education!

Best! -- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 14:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

User:It's gonna be awesome this is not an RCT but a case control study. [6] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I found a recent review.

• Salvi, Virginio; Grua, Ilaria; Cerveri, Giancarlo; Mencacci, Claudio; Barone-Adesi, Francesco (2017-07-31). Meyre, David (ed.). "The risk of new-onset diabetes in antidepressant users – A systematic review and meta-analysis". PLOS ONE. 12 (7). This source from PubMed is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Public Library of Science (PLoS): e0182088. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182088. ISSN  1932-6203. In our meta-analysis we found an association between exposure to ADs and new-onset diabetes, with a relative risk of 1.27. When we restricted the analysis to the studies to high NOS score the association between ADs and diabetes was even stronger. The results are in line with those from two previous meta-analyses that reported a 1.5-fold increase of diabetes among AD users. {{ cite journal}}: External link in |others= ( help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( link)

And the APA's study seems to weigh heavily in every systematic review and meta-analysis. Not sure how do you interpret about the result from the systematic review? Is it suitable to mention the result in the concerning articles?

-- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 15:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Excellent find. This source would be perfectly appropriate. One could say "Antidepressants appear to increase the risk of DM by about 1.3 fold." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! : ) -- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 06:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon Doc James,

My apologies for taking so long to get back to your response; I truly appreciate the rapid feedback. The specific sources (within the context of scoliosis; including all sub-types ie. neuromuscular, congenital, idiopathic) I was discussing/proposing was those related to the annual/semi-annual guidelines which are proposed and published by SOSORT at and following their annual meeting of clinicians, surgeons, researchers, etc. While the guidelines are published within PubMed, the specific journal tends to vary. The guidelines are essentially an amalgamation of current and past research and clinical study findings and serve s general Tx guidelines for those in the field of scoliosis. I've listed some examples (Pubmed) below to the specific guideline publications from the past ~11 years or so. I would think that these should serve well as a secondary source as they do not originate from any individual "camp" of research or study, and typically assess most/all current research. I'd love to hear your thoughts regarding the suitability of such a source as a citable reference for medical information on wikipedia.

2016 guidelines: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29435499

2011 guidelines: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22264320

2008 guidelines: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25066033

Yes looks good. No reason to cite the old ones though... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi... can you tell me differency between Adult ADHD and Borderline personality disorder ? -- رئال بارسلون ( talk) 15:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

please.-- رئال بارسلون ( talk) 15:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Your comment does not appear to be related to improving the encyclopedia.... Just google the diagnostic criteria for adhd, then do another google search for the diagnostic criteria of borderline personality disorder. Also read the articles on Wikipedia for said disorders. You cannot expect editors to start typing lots of text to educate you on various disorders.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 16:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

you are right... but my english is not very well... and was former editor of another language of wikipedia... I'm Adult Adhd ... i just wanna know can i change to Borderline personality disorder or not? i'm from third world country ... we are in sanctions ... almost of doctors in this country red old book of USA academic... they can't treat me... and i can't not give visa... this my only chance that i treat myself... i should know, am i like personality disorder Behavior ??? رئال بارسلون ( talk) 16:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

and i wanna know about Neurosis ... have an ADHD a Neurosis behaviour ?-- رئال بارسلون ( talk) 16:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

i mean that when i can edit well i treated myself, i can edit better in wikipedia. -- رئال بارسلون ( talk) 16:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

i don't think the treatment is in web (hence i can google it) ... i think it's in academic websites which needs money-- رئال بارسلون ( talk) 16:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are having difficulties with your mental health and realise you want help. Firstly, Doc James is an Accident and Emergency physician, he does not diagnose mental illness, so he cannot comment on your case for that reason. Secondly, doctors are generally not allowed, by the their professional governing bodies, to give medical advice to people they have not examined in person. Thirdly, nobody can help you on here because Wikipedia does not allow people to give medical advice. I am afraid you will need to seek help elsewhere — I suggest that help is sought by you where you live from a mental health professional, perhaps a new/different mental health professional who could give a second opinion as you are not happy with your current treatment. Your local general practitioner would be a good starting point to seek such a referral to the appropriate mental health professional. Good luck.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 00:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

for the last question... please ... if i seek as refuge in UN offices, does they give me a professional therapist on ADHD field ?-- رئال بارسلون ( talk) 07:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think the U.N. can or will do this. My advice above remains the same.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 15:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are having these difficulties and that you have so little access to the help that you are seeking. As Literaturegeek correctly said, Wikipedia unfortunately really isn't the place to get the answers to your questions. I did some looking on the Internet, and I found some things that I hope you can access, and that I think are fairly easy to read. I'm posting links to them here, and I hope that maybe they can be helpful for you. Some explanations of the differences between ADHD and borderline personality disorder: [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Some explanations of the relationship between ADHD and other psychiatric disorders: [11], [12], and [13]. It's up to you what you do with this information, because no one here at Wikipedia can explain what those websites mean any further. I very sincerely wish you the best of luck! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please show me where in reference 1 in the POTS article there is evidence provided that CBT is an effective treatment for orthostatic tachycardia. Anal0gue ( talk) 04:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Anal0gue have you read the ref in question? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes I have, which is why I’m asking you to show me where in the paper specifically cognitive behavior therapy is listed as an effective treatment for orthostatic tachycardia and which primary research source the author reviewed to make that claim. Anal0gue ( talk) 06:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"Management of POTS includes avoidance of precipitating factors, volume expansion, physical countermaneuvers, exercise training, pharmacotherapy (fludrocortisone, midodrine, β-blockers, and/or pyridostigmine), and behavioral-cognitive therapy." [14] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Now answer my second question, what research did the author review and cite that supports that claim and makes it not primary research? Anal0gue ( talk) 19:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah? User:Anal0gue that is not how things work here. It is a review article and thus not primary research. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit was flagged by copy patrol as a potential copyright issue. It's not a simple straightforward copy paste of this source, but closer then I think is appropriate. The source has a CC license but not one of the acceptable ones (it has the noncommercial attribute) I'm leaning toward reverting it, but it would obviously be better if you took a look at it and determine whether there is something worth salvaging with a rewrite.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick have adjusted the edit in question. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Are BLPs involving mental health held to the same strict standards as physical health? Please see Health of Donald Trump. There is growing concern that it should be deleted but I'm not sure if the medical aspects of it make it eligible for a speedy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) Hi Atsme. My understanding of WP:BLP is that it applies to anything about BLPs, with no distinction between different types of health. I'm saying that without looking at anything about the specific page you ask about, and thus without knowing whether or not there actually are any BLP issues. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thx, Tryp - I'm of the mind that if the article is noncompliant with MEDRS and what our PAGs have determined to be medically acceptable/appropriate to describe a BLP's mental health, then it would also be noncompliant with BLP and likely perceived as an attack page which makes a G10 the appropriate action, especially since the material in the article is coming from the opinions of observers, not actual in-person examinations by qualified medical professionals. My RL doctor friends would not even consider making such an observation without examining the patient. Anyway, in light of the scrutiny I'm under at AP2 and how easily it is to get the wrong impression, I thought it best to an admin/expert review it and help make a determination. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the safest way to deal with it is to post neutrally at WP:BLPN, asking for other editors to look at the page and decide whether it has BLP issues. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Atsme Comments about diseases and the effects of treatments on diseases require sources that meet MEDRS. Comments about the health of politicians and the media frenzy surrounding it does not. The later is a social and cultural discussion. The NYTs would be fine for a discussion of an individuals health but not for the discussion of a disease. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thx, Doc - that makes sense. So we can say "It has been asserted that Trump has signs of some degree of an early stage of dementia," and cite Newsweek? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Best to attribute that claim to someone. But yes. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

this ticket could use your input. (I'm not sure why, but we are getting a lot of emails today, and I'm out of town)-- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and replied. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you have time to review Neurocrine Biosciences for MEDRS, RS or promotional concerns in general? In particular, "Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News" (genengnews.com) strikes me as churnalism but I'm not a medical professional like you. Likewise I'm not sure if a lightly referenced section titled "Product pipeline" is kosher. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really medical content per say. That journal is published by Mary_Ann_Liebert. Not sure User:Bri. Not too bad. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding calcium channel blockers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiba Inu ( talk • contribs) 05:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure will look in a bit. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

To point out - your recent censoring of an edit i made on Bronchitis page - chronic bronchitis-treatment – changed the info to include material not supported by original ref; attached the ref i had added to the changed info which does not support this info, and you also managed to make a redlink.-- Iztwoz ( talk) 07:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure will look. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The sentence in question is "Mucolytics, such as guaifenesin, may have a small benefit in chronic bronchitis."

First ref says "In participants with chronic bronchitis or COPD, we are moderately confident that treatment with mucolytics may produce a small reduction in acute exacerbations and a small effect on overall quality of life." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26222376

Second ref says "All of these definitive studies demonstrated statistically superior efficacy of guaifenesin versus controls in improving ease of expectoration, decrease in sputum surface tension and viscosity, or reduction in the frequency and severity of cough" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724298/

Adjusted a bit as you are correct it does define the degree of benefit in the second paper.

Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

))))))))))))))))) Schekinov Alexey Victorovich ( talk) 15:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Schekinov Alexey Victorovich it however does not illustrate the condition very well. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

У нас не такой большой выбор подобных изо. Поэтому я пошел на это. Чтоб моих ошибок не повторяли. Лично я завязал навсегда, после того как отнялись ноги, впечатлений на всю жизнь. Спасибо докторам - поставили на ноги, больше эксперементировать со здоровьем не хочу. Schekinov Alexey Victorovich ( talk) 15:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. That is preposterous. But that is how we inevitably meet, preposterous MOS’sis that you cite.

That copy has nothing to do with society and culture. It deals with the two things that I included: marketing and availability.

I hope you are happy. Slavish adherence to recommendations masquerading as the MOS does not improve this encyclopedia. Yours Wikiuser100 ( talk) 16:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes brand names are social and cultural aspects. Yes consistency makes sense IMO to make content easier to find. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	You made my most important article so much better with your edits. This is the first barnstar I have given so I hope I am doing it right. Akrasia25 ( talk) 18:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Akrasia25. Look like you have done a lot of work on that article. I have just made a few cosmetic changes. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Re: your reverting this edit on melanoma#Prognosis

I understand that a bulleted list may not be necessary, but having the bullets does help with reading comprehension and make it easier parse the information on the page. I'd prefer changing it back to help people understand the content better. Are you okay with that?

• Also, Is there a meaningful difference between using "Features" and "Factors" in that first sentence?

Damenleeturks ( talk) 17:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Generally we write in WP:PROSE rather than point form. Agree factors is better than features. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Bulleted lists are still valid within Wikipedia's MOS, especially where we have a "a long sequence within a sentence" (per MOS:LONGSEQ). In this case, I'd say that nine items tucked into the middle of a paragraph would fit this bill. Damenleeturks ( talk) 18:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yah I guess. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, May I humbly suggest a few modifications (bold) to the current text ? CHIVA's objective is to improve symptoms and signs without destroying the veins.[2][3]. In addition, the conservation purpose is to preserve the great saphenous vein for its use in a possible future coronary or leg arterial by-pass. IN 'Procedure' : Then a minimally invasive operation is performed under local anesthesia, through a few incisions and ligations (usually one to four), without venous ablation. The ligation (places) takes place according to the ultrasound mapping.[2] Areas (were) where the veins are varicose may also be removed.[4] Varicose veins in areas where they are not functional may also be removed.[4]. Thank you. -- Geiss ( talk) 09:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Geiss, What references were you thinking of using to support that? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Apart from a few typos (were instead of where) and an incomplete sentence "Then a minimally invasive operation, under local anesthesia, through a few incisions and ligations (usually one to four), without venous ablation", a few references regarding the proposed text 'In addition, the conservation purpose is to preserve the great saphenous vein for its use in a possible future coronary or leg arterial by-pass' : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18372148 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520163 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4971977/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26282605 Geiss ( talk) 08:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Do these references mention CHIVA Geiss? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doc James The above links do not specifically mention the CHIVA method. They are about grafts and the advantages of the no-touch technique. On the following link, you can read 'Despite the widespread use of the internal thoracic artery (ITA) and other arterial conduits, the saphenous vein (SV) continues to be the most commonly used conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).' https://mmcts.org/tutorial/759 And you know that the autologous saphenous vein remains the gold standard for both peripheral vascular surgery and coronary bypass. Consequently, compared to varicose vein destructive methods, the CHIVA method keeps the saphenous vein in place, which therefore remains available for no-touch operations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002252231000125X Geiss ( talk) 21:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If it does not mention CHIVA in relation to this than it probably should not be included. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

∯WBG ^converse 00:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Provided an initial response here [15] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hiya, I am having trouble getting a new page off the ground. It is for a Paramedic journal ( Draft:Journal_of_paramedic_practice ). It was deleted for lacking notability. I am at a loss to demonstrate a higher degree of notability, and would welcome any help, I can't help but wonder if it is because paramedicine is a fairly new profession/field and therefor people are less likely to take it seriously? Any help or advice would be great. Tannim101 ( talk) 22:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tannim101 Does the journal have an impact factor? Also what is your relation to the journal in question? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have an IF on the usual websites, I'm on the editorial board - and have a COI listed on my talk page for this. There seem to be other less articles for journals with fewer/no citations, what are the key elements missing for this one? Tannim101 ( talk) 22:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You need significant high quality third party coverage. Is it pubmed indexed? Appears not to be. Not sure it is notable. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Doc James: I am writing a needed update of "Follicular lymphoma" on my sandbox page. This past week I have not been able to use Wiki T to format and insert PubMed references into this page. I reach the Wiki T site using: https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi?ddb=&type=pubmed_id&id=26980727&add_param_space=1&add_ref_tag=1&full_journal_title=1. There, I get the following error message no matter which PubMed ID number I enter: Error: Can't call method "findnodes" on an undefined value at /data/project/citation-template-filling/perl/ActivePerl-5.26/site/lib/WWW/Search/PubMedLite.pm line 117.

Would you please help me with this? Thank you for all of your past help. joflaher ( talk) 17:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:joflaher this tool still works. [16] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

( Talk page stalker) I maintain the tool and I am acutely aware of the problem and I am trying to fix it. This tool has been running for years and this is the very first time I have seen this type of error. There is some weird incompatibility between the Wikimedia tool server (which hosts the tool) and the PubMed entrez database from the citation data is downloaded (cannot resolve host, SSL certificate is invalid) and I have no idea how to fix it. I have sent the tool server mailing list a bug report and requested help, but so far no one has responded. I will keep you posted. Boghog ( talk) 16:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Boghog Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon Doc James, I wanted to thank you for your feedback on my edits on medical articles. In the future I'll be more careful with my edits, making sure they are correctly cited and backed by trustworthy medical sources. I apologize to you and Wikipedia because truly these edits were based mainly on my own experience with knee injuries and I wasn't aware of the guidelines and standards Wikipedia used for this type of articles. Once again, thank you for your constructive feedback.

JorgeDV97. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JorgeDV97 ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:JorgeDV97 no worries :-) We all were new editors once... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't get access to the Am J Ther reference, but I think the first reference contains more information about the proposed mechanism of the toxicity, namely through 9CMMG. I would be happy to support your ref if you could confirm that it discusses the mechanism. [17] JFW |  T@lk 15:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Jfdwolff check you mail :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is Lucy Wills a low importance article? Tapered ( talk) 09:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

All articles about people should be listed as low importance per WP:MED Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

To: María Sefidari ( User:Raystorm), Christophe Henner ( User:Schiste), Dr. Dariusz Jemielniak ( User:Pundit), Dr. James Heilman ( User:Doc James), Jimmy Wales ( User:Jimbo Wales), Nataliia Tymkiv ( User:NTymkiv (WMF))

Dear members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (or rather, those of you with public user accounts):

I am one of probably many Wikipedia users writing to you about the matter of the Wikimedia Foundation's office's ban of the English Wikipedia user Fram, as documented at en:Wikipedia:FRAM.

I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia since 2006. I am not involved, as far as I recall, in any disputes involving Fram or other users involved in this matter, and do not personally know any of them.

As you will know, this dispute has resulted in a grave crisis of confidence on the part of very many English Wikipedia users with respect to Foundation staff. I urge you to give this matter your full attention. In particular, I'd like to ask you and the Board to, as quickly as reasonably possible:

• establish publicly, to the extent possible consistent with applicable privacy rules, who among Foundation officials imposed or authorized sanctions against Wikipedia users in this case, and on which specific grounds, and

• communicate to the community of users the measures you took to remedy the situation, and to ensure that such a crisis of confidence will not reoccur.

Thank you for your service on behalf of our common project.

Sandstein 17:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Sandstein Concur with User:Pundit here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, may I ask why you've removed the additional brand name from the Orkambi page, as well as links directly to the manufacturers' pages for those brandings? Unless you can provide a reasonable explanation, I'll readd those as they are both factually correct and backed up by the appropriate sources. AtomCrusher ( talk) 14:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:AtomCrusher We only generally put the first brand name in the first sentence. The other goes in the infobox. Also we prioritize the use of independent sources. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, Some questions you could ask whenever you have your sit down. They're worded a little sloppily, but I assume you won't care about that: Most important:

• Was the reason Fram was sitebanned, and the communications between him and WMF T&S staff, significantly different than what he described? I ask because, due to a lack of interest in communication on WMF T&S staff's part, Fram's description is all we have to go on. His account sounds true, and Fram does not have a history of lying. A history of being obnoxious, yes, but not lying. I don't see any other recent on-wiki behavior besides this. And if there was off-wiki behavior, then this ban from en.wiki only would make zero sense.

Others:

• It appears that WMF T&S took this action, in part, because they believed en.wiki processes would have been too lenient if it was raised here. Is this accurate? I ask because this does not appear to be a legitimate reason to take over local dispute resolution. If there is a consensus in the en.wiki community not to do something, that shouldn't be overridden.
• Please try to get to the bottom of why Fram is so far the only long-term editor to have been investigated and sanctioned this way, with no active blocks/bans/investigations on en.wiki. Because it sure looks like it has to do with him being a gadfly, and someone who picked the wrong targets for his obnoxiousness (WMF engineering, friend of a WMF board member, and ArbCom).
• If WMF staff say there are other non-public reasons for this (i.e. more than what Fram has described), are they going to show you those reasons, or are you going to take their word for it?

-- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hope to discuss tomorrow. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Floq's questions are good ones. I'd also like to suggest discussing how to avoid, in the future, having this kind of situation escalate the way that this one did. It feels to me like WMF made multiple unforced errors that needlessly angered the community. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Another question, if you see this in time and think it might be a good idea: If the ban is unrelated to Fram's criticism of the WMF, would they allow an exception for discussions involving WMF initiatives (such as Visual Editor, Flow, and Wikidata)? If so, I think it would be a conclusive demonstration of good faith and address many of the concerns being raised about legitimacy.

Also: Tryptofish, I'm not following you around, honestly! :-) Sunrise ( talk) 07:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It would never have occurred to me that you were! All the best, -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)