Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 158

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160→Archive 165

Edit warring on List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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.
You've now reverted the article's text twice, changing the wording used from that explicitly used on the cited source (The Guardian). It says circumcision is banned from Australian public hospitals, not that it is not permitted.[1]

Please do not return wrong stuff to Wikipedia again. And circumcision is not banned from public hospitals, it is only cosmetic circumcision that is not permitted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I need assistance

The article 2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products contains a large amount of wording that is emotionally loaded - I feel this is in violation of WP:Soap but since this is more of a clinical topic than a biochemical one - I humbly ask for assistance

Mfernflower (talk) Mfernflower (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products § Patients may be in need of cleaning up, especially the image of the hospital bed social media appeal. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru is very adamant about keeping the soap boxing as seen on the articles talk page Mfernflower (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The hospital bed patient and image is a salient topic. Anyone can create a new article. It is a violation of NPOV to hide the content under a rug.
If the section needs cleaning up I can start a new splinter article for the patients section. There are more people alive than dead and they are talking about their near-death experience. Daniel allegedly died after vaping. QuackGuru (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


Wikipedia policy says the image is in violation of wp:soap as advocacy is explicitly forbidden on WP

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things

Mfernflower (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of conduct should probably be continued at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#QuackGuru and disruption over e-cigs and pod mods ☆ Bri (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Mfernflower, please focus on content rather than editor.[1] QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to leave this conversation now, having posted an opinion at ANI. But ANI is exactly the right place to discuss problem behavior. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
If the patient campaign is notable, than we can discuss and illustrate it. The big thing is we need to decrease duplication between Vaping-associated pulmonary injury and 2019 outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products. Do we really need both? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

In the comics today! :)

Hello User:Doc James !!!!!

Today I saw a cartoon in the newspaper today and I thought I'd send it to you because it made me think of you as a Wikipedian and a doctor. It was in "The Argyle Sweater" by Scott Hilburn.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191020032841/http://www.theargylesweater.com/

Thanks and have a great day!!!!!

Happy Wikipediaing!!!

-TenorTwelve (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:TenorTwelve thank but Internet archive does not work for me for that page :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Does this work? http://www.theargylesweater.com/ (It will probably work for today and then a new cartoon will be added) (That was fast!) -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah figured it out User:TenorTwelve. As I am in the 20th rather than the 19th of October the site sends me to the not yet published one... The 19th one is funny :-) Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Factitious disorder imposed on another

Hello. Could you kindly clarify the concerns you had regarding my edit to Factitious disorder imposed on another? "They" is plural, and using "they" in this context is technically incorrect, even though many people use it in everyday conversation. 75.139.254.124 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This is easy to understand "Therapy may help when the caregiver realizes they need help." this is much less so "Therapy may help when the caregiver gains insight." Insight in this context is not widely known. "they" is gender neutral of he / she / they
What was wrong with "their child" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Coprophagia

Good day,

I have followed your suggestion, and updated the Talk Page on the topic of Infant Coprophagia. I don't want to make an edit war, so will be a bit more careful, it just seems to me to be relevant information, so I think it would be good either that somebody acknowledges that this information and it's sources are valid, or that proper counter-arguments backed by scientific sources are presented. I am also willing to first make a draft and post it in the talk page, if that seems necesary

PS: The topic I have written on is clearly ethological, not medicinal, so I don't see the need for references per WP:MEDRSFreieFF (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC) FreieFF (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Coprophagia is a medical topic. Clearly. That it also concerns non-human animals does not make it any less a medical topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion/expert advice on when to/wikipedia's policy on labelling something "pseudoscience"

Hello! I came across an edit to Bernard Selz where someone had removed the term "pseudoscience" when used to describe the movie Vaxxed. The Vaxxed article says it "is a 2016 American pseudoscience documentary film alleging a cover-up". Before just reverting the Bernard Selz edit, I thought I'd do some due diligence and looked at the first five references for the Vaxxed article, and none of them have the word "pseudoscience" in them. I looked at several other references in that article with the same results.

From: Pseudoscience : "Pseudoscience can be harmful. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism [my emphasis] and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatment with demonstrable health benefits. "

But from: WP:WORDS "Contentious_labels" says: With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources.

I figured you would be likely to have good knowledge/experience in this area....what is your advice here? and/or Can you point me to any policy areas I missed in my search?

Thanks!!! ---Avatar317(talk) 05:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Avatar317 here is a decent ref to support pseudoscience.[2]
Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

About Draft:Suman Gupta (Indian actress)

Hello sir I am giving you a reference to proved notability of the person,

https://www.iwmbuzz.com/television/news/suman-gupta-star-plus-karn-sangini/2018/08/29

https://m.timesofindia.com/tv/news/hindi/Suman-Gupta-portrays-SRK-of-Swades-on-the-small-screen/articleshow/45776393.cms

I hope you are satisfied. If you want more source of the person you need to done a quick Google search, also, I request you sir Can you Please me help in creating this article. I have already Created the Draft Suman Gupta today back but Since suman gupta name is in Wikipedia Blacklist only experienced editor can remove that. I request the you administrator sir to check it as the subject matter follows the guidelines of Notability and is worthy for moving to Article space. thanks. Update once (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

And your relation to the topic in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to create the article but not able to create the article so my relation to the topic is I am the creator of the draft, because I feel the draft should be moved thank you.Update once (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Obesity

You did not respond to my latest comments from several days ago, so I assumed your arguments were exhausted. Your revert count is now higher than mine so don't issue accusations. −Woodstone (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As the content has been present a long time you will need consensus to remove it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Arnold Stainbank

Hi Doc James. Since you indef'd Mike Stainbank, perhaps you can look at Arnold Stainbank because he's identified himself as the same person at the Teahouse. I would've removed the post per WP:EVADE, but it's been responded to. Maybe hatting it would be better in that case? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it is dealt with.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I didn't realize that someone had started an ANI discussion about the account when I posted the above. Thanks for taking a look at it anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

What does one do in a situation like this? Have I said the right thing? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

If they are notable, the only thing you can do is work to make sure the article is neutral. User:Kudpung Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you check recent revise on Methylphenidate ?

Greetings.I'm not used to editing medical article.But I am not certain about recent edit on Methylphenidate .There are many Pubmed article The dopamine theory of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.My English is not enough to write,and although my account is 11 years old,I edited only about 200 times.I am sorry for asking,could you check the article? Paperworkorange (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Paperworkorange which edit specifically? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't even know how to point out edit without username..It's 14:51, 26 October 2019 edit.Paperworkorange (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Yah looked at it.[3] Shorter and basically says the same thing... No significant concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.Maybe I was overly concerned.Paperworkorange (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

USP 800

Good afternoon Doc James,

I'll start by saying I am new to the world of editing Wikipedia and find it very enjoyable. I enjoy evaluating drug information. I noticed that you have edited nearly everything I edit, you're very up to date on all medications. Very cool... I appreciate all of your changes and I am taking notes. I recently created my first page "USP 800". It is a brief summary of the new guidelines for handling hazardous drugs. If you have a minute would you please check it out and let me know of anything that should be changed.

Thank you!

Maborland (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome User:Maborland sure will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Down syndrome

As I had worked in the late Dr. Nitowsky's laboratory and even provided some assistance in preparing the original paper, I was disappointed to see my short addition to the Down Syndrome article removed. Mentioning the date and origin of the first blood test does not seem out of line to me, nor providing a link to the original paper.

David H. Fox Albert Einstein College of Medicine (retired) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox11354 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Fox11354 is there a secondary source that comments on this? Would belong in the history section if anywhere. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ASD Removal of additional line

Ive sited the following article linking executive functioning impairments to ASD, previously not mentioned in the wiki and cited the following article: https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13034-019-0299-7

Why did you remove it?

Thank you for your answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.212.75.17 (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As stated on your talk page, it is a primary source and we should be using secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Down syndrome

Here is a link to the abstract of original paper linking low maternal serum AFP to Down Syndrome discovered in 1983 and published in 1984.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6201071

At the time, our lab was being transferred from Pediatrics to OB/GYN where Dr. Merkatz was chairman. For political reasons, Nitowsky allowed Merkatz to be first author even though he had nothing to the do with the discovery. Only Nitowsky had access to AFP and karyotype results. At that time, blood for AFP testing was sent to a lab operated by Macri, while cytogenetic work was done in house. I do not recall Johnson's position after all these years. There was communication between Dr. Nitowsky and Jack Canick in the UK, who published confirmation of the findings. Canick went on to make other discoveries in the field. Nitowsky opposed patenting of the use of AFP testing for Down Syndrome screening. This was unlike the discoverers of other markers used in the present triple and quad tests.

I would also mention that earlier forms of ultrasound lacked the resolution to detect anything beyond the position of the fetus prior to amniocentesis. What we had in the 1990s was a far cry from what we had in the early 1970s. Today, neural tube defects can be detected without reliance on AFP levels. David H. Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox11354 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The request was to provide a secondary source. I looked and could not find one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Colorectal cancer

Hi, is the most recent big deletion from the above article ok?? I'm not a medical expert but it seems to be too much. Anyway, thanks in advance. Denisarona (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Denisarona the content was moved to a subpage Histopathology of colorectal carcinoma and there is a link to that page from the main article :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. Denisarona (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A Grammar Error

Hello Doc James

I just want to let you know about a grammatical error, which I found out during the translation of the article "Down syndrome". It is written: ... the risk of other non blood cancers are decreased. (The "chapter" 1. Sign and symptoms - 1.5 Cancer) As I know it should be is (the risk is) and the grammar editor, which I use, says the same.

I would like to correct the mistake by myself and do not bother you but the article is semi-protected which does not allow me to do any corrections.

Thank you for help Bc. Ľubomíra Jurčišinová (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bc. Ľubomíra Jurčišinová: Please pardon me for stepping in, but I've fixed the mistake. (I was just stopping by and noticed your comment.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks User:Bc. Ľubomíra Jurčišinová and User:DocWatson42 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: Thank you indeed.

@Doc James & Bc. Ľubomíra Jurčišinová: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Acute Sinusitis Addition

Doc, I am brand new to Wikipedia and attempted to add valuable insight to acute sinusitis that we published in the New England J of Medicine. The CT findings and associated measures document the degree to which viral infection (common cold) affects sinus function and is truly a "rhinosinusitis". I thought its placement was appropriate to the text. Please let me know what happened or what I need to do.

Doc Don — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyork45 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. We tend to stick with review articles not primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Nascent edit war at Soy allergy

FYI - At Soy allergy an IP editor and I are verging on an edit war. I have left a note on the editor's Talk that a discussion on the article's Talk page is preferred. David notMD (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

User:David notMD weighed in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The editor in question, now User talk:Shanefiddle, continues to add content (Citric acid and Vitamin E as possible triggers of soy allergy reaction) that in my scientific opinion has no support in the literature. I revert, and Shanefiddle adds in again. I have replied, expressing my concerns, on the article's talk page and Sf's Talk page, including mention that repetition of this behavior could lead to one or both of us being temporarily blocked. My hope is that this tempers Sf's enthusiasm, which has as a foundation a severe allergy to soy. David notMD (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

On source reliability

Dear James,

I would like to thank you for the clarification on the use of medical sources on Wikipedia and the distinction of high-quality sources. I was merely wondering whether together with the use of primarily secondary sources and discouragement of primary sources, is there a certain 'limit' as to how old a source can be? I have noticed many of the sources I use are 7 years-old or more. New research is being released constantly so I was just curious whether a source published in 2011 or something of the like could be acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CEHughes77 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:CEHughes77 The current reference is a 2019 review published in Pediatrics.[4]
So best to stick with sources from the last 5 years. What are you suggesting? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Doc James

Dear James, Thank you for the clarification. Please ignore my previous attempts at modifying the section on dermatitis as I was using outdated material. I read through the 2019 article and it seems newer studies have already addressed the points in the previous articles I attempted to cite. I was merely curious whether there was any criteria for the age of articles and that is all. Once again, thank you for providing information that will assist me in providing reliable information on this Website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CEHughes77 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:CEHughes77 WP:MEDRS runs through this. With respect to the age some common sense needs to be used. In minor topic areas older sources may be the only / best ones avaliable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
I really appreciated your edits to internet addiction disorder, right before it heads up in the main page! good pickup and thank you, as I am certainly tiring of the topic :) [E.3][chat2][me] 15:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

any chance of helping out more diplomatically with video game addiction than I was able to a few months back?

esp as it too will soon be on the main page. Thankyou! --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:E.3 currently travelling... Will look when I am able. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Chlortalidone Adverse Effects

I replied on the talk page to your comments. Were you going to revise the article accordingly? Sbelknap (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Will look. Had not seen it yet as traveling.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Fitbit

Why did you re-add removed health effects information on Fitbit? Is there any relevance to this study that is specific to Fitbit that is not already covered on activity tracker (which also contains side notes on how the data may have been impacted by user behaviour)? The ways it's been abruptly added make it feel like a disclaimer that "Fitbit products may result in less weight loss rather than more". ViperSnake151  Talk  18:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The utility of Fitbit/activity trackers is definitely notable. Thus I restored it. Evidence does not support their use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Anthropophobia

Just to let you know that your redirecting of this has been undone. You might want to have a look. PamD 08:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

User:PamD have restored the redirect and left a message on the talk page Talk:Anthropophobia#Social_phobia Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Help with Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma

DocJames, I have just extensively revised and updated the Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma page. As part of this revision, I should further merge three pages, MALT lymphoma, Splenic marginal zone lymphoma and Nodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma into the Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma page. Together, the old edition of the Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma page and the other three lymphoma pages give an incorrect or misleading picture of Marginal zone B-cell lymphomas as they are now regarded. My revision of the Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma page clarifies this picture. Would you or a colleague review my revision and evaluate my proposal to merge the latter three pages into the Marginal Zone lymphoma page. I do want to follow proper protocols on this issue. Thank you. --joflaher (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure will take a look User:joflaher. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Doc James, I have a Quackwatch/Gary Null-related medical question. (I agree that Null's health claims are generally spurious.) In Barrett's critique of Null's thesis, he says:

The "medical evaluation" included two tests. One compared each volunteer's blood pressure when lying down and when standing up. The other was a chemical test for the amount of sodium and chloride in the urine. Null claims that these tests can detect "diminished adrenal function." Unfortunately for his thesis, they have no practical value for this purpose. [emphasis added] [5]

Is Barrett correct? I was under the impression that orthostatic/postural hypotension might indicate primary adrenal insufficiency or hypoaldosteronism. Cheers, gnu57 18:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Genericusername57 orthostatic hypotension is super common. Well it can occur in primary adrenal insufficiency and hypoaldosteronism I would not use it to diagnosis either.
If one wants to diagnose primary adrenal insufficiency/ Addison's disease it is generally based on blood tests.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thank you very much. Cheers, gnu57 04:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice to see you're still out here fighting for quality

Hi James, been a long time. I was just doing some research on medications I'm taking for my fever and noticed you working away in the article history. Thanks for keeping these medical articles accurate! Alan.ca (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Alan.ca happy to help :-) Hope all is well... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

congrats!

Thanks. Looks like it was finally published :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
looks like there progressing with PubMed Central application(and [8])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Unprotection of ThePrint

Requesting unprotection of the ThePrint for implmentation of categories per its talk page and in preparation for a more for mainspace at some near point of Draft:ThePrint .. see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Possible abuse of AfC tools for a discussion that indicates a return to mainspace is viable and likely imminent is unlikely to be associated with paid socks unless you believe me to be one. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Djm-leighpark it is currently declined. User:DGG your thoughts on the article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I am respectfully of the opinion the situation is becoming a WP:DRV matter unless DGG can resolve. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Multiple creations of the article by socks got it deleted and salted. Now it needs to pass AfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I respectively comment WP:DRV is also an appropriate pathway and needs to is incorrect. That said I agree there us a necessity for an article to be fit for mainspace. There is also the question of the suggested edits of the redirects on the talk page. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the current version is acceptable; it is neither promotional nor copyvio, and has a possibility of notability . I accepted it. If anyone disagrees, tthe next step is AfD. Thecommunity will decide DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks User:DGG Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Medically assisted death

I just found out that "Medically Assisted Death" is a valid term and not a euphemism; in fact it is the title of this book. However, it seems to be an umbrella term for things that encompass not just physician assisted suicide (PAS) but also "the withholding and withdrawing of medical and other treatment" (p. 2). If I'm correct perhaps the wording should be changed from MAD to PAS at an article that's about to appear on the main page? Could I get your concurrence on this first? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

On the main page now. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Will look . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Bri made some changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks better, thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Theo Wallimann

It is regarding the page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Theo_Wallimann

I represent Dr. Theo Wallimann, It is true that Dr. Theo Wallimann, has hired the following users: 911dheeraj, to edit his page. But we are not aware of their sockpuppetry. We tried to contact them, but they weren't helpful in removing the UDP template.

I would like to know how can I remove the UDP template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsCedric (talk • contribs) 06:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User:LarsCedric you cannot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Press, Australian Associated (2017-02-09). "Protection offered by circumcision does not warrant lifting ban, say doctors". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-06-01.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_158&oldid=927543593"