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

Hi DocJames!

Thanks for the friendly note and links to useful Wikipedia resources. I appreciate it!

I'll comb through the references and see if I used any primary sources and if I can identify secondary source to replace them, as well as if I need to modify any of the text to align more with secondary sources.

However - because it's an orphan disease, I'm concerned that the publication frequency of secondary sources may not be the same as more common diseases and disorders. Therefore, some of the secondary sources may not include all of the 'recent' findings - such as the 2009 ('recent') paper on PCDH19 gene-related epilepsy occurring in males with somatic mosaicism. If I'm unable to find a secondary source mentioning this finding, is there a preferred way for me to note that the cited source is primary and should be monitored/reevaluated for secondary sources?

Thank you again for all of your help!

All the best - Djahmei (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This is against WP:TPO, which I suggest you read. I would hope you do not repeat the action. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked your account for three days for insulting another editor. Please do not do it again. Repeatedly calling someone a "coward" is not appropriate[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, "Coward" presumably refers to the RfC at Talk:Noël Coward. I don't see how this can be construed as offensive except Coward, but that is explainable and from the comment SchroCat is not accusing Guy of cowardice. I think you've made a terrible mistake. BethNaught (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• The topic is Noël Coward. Why block SchroCat? There is nothing wrong with this comment. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should spell it out. Guy closed an RfC at Talk:Noël Coward (a very crappy close, by the way, but that's not relevant here). There has been a brawl at the Coward article and its talk page for an extended period, and the "Coward" heading is how they refer to the subject at the article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• While I appreciate my opinion is of little relevance, I also came here to question how this block of SchroCat is justified? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

SagaciousPhil perhaps the time spent on a matter that is settled, could be better spent "improving an article" which is what we are all here for, wouldn't you say?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: - You appear to have altered your comment and specifically addressed it to me. Why? What do you mean? When I commented on this page the block was in place so the matter could scarcely be a "matter that is settled", can it? Also, your comment that my time "could be better spent "improving an article" ..." is wholly inappropriate. What do you think I usually spend my time doing? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

SchroCat

I honestly don't think that a 72 hr block is warranted. Please consider unblocking him, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

See the previous section. It appears people are jumping to conclusions without knowing what the fuss has been about. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks took a further look. Accept that explanation and unblocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your unblock edit summary of "Okay accept explanation" is totally unsatisfactory. While you might claim that your mistake was understandable under the circumstances, it was your mistake. The edit summary reads as if the person you mistakenly blocked invented an excuse which you graciously accepted. Block logs tarnish reputations and clarity is essential. Johnuniq (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I accepted the explanation. Using the heading that was used was fairly ambiguous. Repeatedly restoring it after being removed by multiple editors not the best form either. Editor is unblocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You made a mistake and blocked a good editor for no cause without first asking what it was all about. The "explanation" merely pointed out your mistake, and your unblock edit summary should have highlighted that the block was in error. Johnuniq (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In case you missed the ping Doc James, I am still waiting for a response to my comment to you on my talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As you deleted some of my comments to your page I was under the impress you were not wanting my posting there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I pinged you, so obviously I want you to address the comments. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, so I have unblocked your account and I restored your comments while changing the heading.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That does not cover what I had written. I'll also repeat what others have also voiced here: your explanation is sub-optimal. Bluntly, you cocked up, and your explanation looks like you are trying to avoid any acknowledgement. Anyone can make a mistake, but to avoid acknowledgement of that mistake when so obvious as this, is shoddy. - SchroCat (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You had your comment removed[3] with a statement of NPA. You restored it. You had it removed again.[4] And your restored it a second time without explanation.[5] I have assumed good faith on your part, following your explanation, and unblocked you. Your comments can be read in different ways and I think we all know that. I have accepted that you did not mean it as a personal insult. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know what took place: I was there, remeber. It's utterly pointless trying to get through to some people. You know you cocked up, I know you cocked up, and everyone looking at this knows you cocked up: it reflects badly on you than you are dodging both the points on my talk page and what is blindingly obvious to everyone else. – SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I am still willing to assume good faith that you did not mean "coward" as a personal attack with the belief that you could than attribute it to the topic in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Since you took the extra effort of drafting a personalized edit summary in the block rationale for posterity, you should ideally have taken the time to apologize and make a sincere attempt at rectifying that mistake rather than being flippant about it. Absent an apology, why even bother with the “Okay accept explanation” part in both your unblock message and edit summary? “I have unblocked” would have sufficed, it still exudes the sense of administrative authoritarianism it conveys. - NQ (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I accepted their explanation. There is nothing "flippant" about that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• [6] should have been linked at title/article (that allowed another interpretation)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Cerebral perfusion pressure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
An editor removed content stating the range is too high here Thought you might want to verify. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks will look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay restored and adjusted some User:Jim1138 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

First, thanks for all the work you've done on the bipolar spectrum disorder articles. As for simplification of the manic lithograph caption, it's not exactly a drawing. Image might do—but that, like the word 'picture' is a bit redundant in a caption. I'm OK with 'drawing' since technical writing is so often enervated by straining at precision—this is, after all, an encyclopedia. — Neonorange (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

K thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the question of (directly) using images such as the following: http://webeye.ophth.uiowa.edu/eyeforum/atlas/pages/vogts-striae.htm in Wikipedia pages, so far as I know, the licensing information at the website webeye.ophth.uiowa.edu already allows use of such images in Wikipedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:American_medical_hashish(2).jpg https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en_US However, your guess might as good or better than my guess. Suslindisambiguator (talk)SuslindisambiguatorSuslindisambiguator (talk)

User:Suslindisambiguator Wikipedia does not accept the NC ND licenses. We would need to request an exception to that. Will look into it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Invisalign edit for 3D scans, the website torontobraces.ca and the youtube videos seem to be one of the most detailed series of informative videos on the web regarding the Invisalign procedure. It was created by an Align Technology Speaker, a Top 1% Invisalign Provider (highest tier of Invisalign provider), a two-time published author in Invisalign's Case Gallery publications, and frequent contributor to orthodontic forums ^[1],^[2], and ^[3]. There is a signed letter from the Eastern Director at Invisalign discussing the credentials and provides information about the 3D scanning: ^[4] Seems like a pretty good source, although secondary, because Align's website actually provides even less information.

Orthognathic (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

None of those are high quality secondary sources. Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Doc James,

I am writing to understand why you created a redirect from the "Mobetron" wiki page. I represent the company that manufactures this product.

I understand that Wiki is not intended primarily for product marketing. However, I also believe our product meets the Wiki criteria for being posted to the site.

Namely, this product is referenced in textbooks and peer reviewed journals.

He are examples to two books which describe the technical features of the Mobetron.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-61779-015-7_3 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0471732877.emd313/abstract;jsessionid=4BF8FB0D9605F002EE50F625A4E3C38F.f04t04?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

We had authorized a unbiased third party to update the page with some of this information as well as post photos that we own the copyright to. Those were removed and then the entire

Other peer technologies that are similar to our product are included in Wikipedia such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberknife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da_Vinci_Surgical_System

These are tradename healthcare products. Hence, please provide clarification and direction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddescioli (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A couple of things.

1. As you have a direct COI you need to state that on your user page per the message I left.
2. We generally redirect brands to generics which is what we have done in your case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddescioli (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to reduce these questionable phobias to redirects into the list. It suggests a legitimacy which encourages re-creating the deleted articles. Mangoe (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You can have a phobia to anything. Therefore the list is potentially unlimited. I agree the ones without any decent refs should just be deleted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Doc James,

Kozhencherry is not Pathanamthitta District, Kerala state, India. It is a major town in Pathanamthitta district. Pathanamthitta District comprises many towns like Pathanamthitta, Thiruvalla, Adoor, Pandalam, Ranni, Konni, Mallapally, Kozhencherry, etc along with more than 60 villages.

Hence, let's please have a separate topic for Kozhencherry.

For more details of Pathanamthitta district and kozhencherry, refer 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathanamthitta_district

2. http://pathanamthitta.nic.in/

3. Kozhencherry - http://www.webindia123.com/city/kerala/pathanamthitta/destnations/touristattractions/kozhencherry.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megha nair89 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

And my native place is Kozhencherry town in Pathanamthitta district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megha nair89 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The newly created page was basically unreferenced. It needs references and had already been deleted under another name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

..Could you or one of your minions in the Medical area take a look at this request on the Fringe noticeboard please. Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Found some decent sources. We have merged here Epidermal_growth_factor#Medical_uses Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see my additions to the mitragyna speciosa talk page. The DEA does not say what it defines as a death from kratom, and the original source regarding naloxone does not use it in a context relating to kratom Ingenium (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied on talk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You blocked his person for copyright violations and COI issues. The images are clearly copyvios so can you just delete them or do I have to go through and tag them all as F9 individually? Obviously they are not own work. I was just going through recent uploads when I stumbled across this person's uploads. I can start going through them an tagging them all but that is just a lot of work when the result is really really obvious. You said it yourself on their talk page, they would have had to been in two places at once to take some of those photos. --Majora (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Majora they said they would get OTRS approval for all of them. I guess the question is do we give them some time to do so? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Generally no. We don't. People who put things under ((self)) and are caught lying have their images tagged F9 and deleted immediately. At least as far as I've been tagging images. F11, the no permissions/you have seven days to send in permissions to OTRS one, is for people who attempt to at least give credit where credit is due. It is up to you though. They all have to be checked and tagged either way. F9 or F11. Just let me know and I will start going through them. --Majora (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay thank User:Majora. Will delete tonight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Majora done. Let me know if I missed any. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. I did a quick scroll through of their remaining uploads and they look fine. Mostly movie posters correctly placed under fair use. Thanks for grabbing the other ones. --Majora (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I had a look too, and concur. I tagged this logo image as orphaned. After the speedy deletions go through, we may have one or two more orphaned fair use images. (edited to add) Whoops, here's one recently orphaned: File:Techshore Inspection Services.png. - Brianhe (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there an explicit guideline or MOS for that? Nightscream (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The essay you point to says "One can additionally hide citations with to prevent confusion in the future; then can be uncommented if new material with different sources is interpolated later."[7] I have adjusted it some to clarify.

If every sentence is not referenced someone adds a cn tag. The hidden refs speed up the follow up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Wikipedia does not used primary sources. As a public health physician and psychiatrist, I had hoped to enhance the fetal alcohol spectrum disorders article in Wikipedia by adding a conversation about sociological/cultural context. My experience with community health is that there are a lot of blind sides on on both sides of the equation. The sociologists often lack an understanding of the biologic aspects of the social determinants of health and the physicians often lack an understanding of the sociological/cultural aspects that determine health care outcomes. Accordingly, I thought the Wikipedia section on the high prevalence of FASD in rural Australia was a nice addition as it highlighted a sociological/cultural context where FASD is reaching epidemic proportions, and I thought my research on Chicago's Southside would compliment the Australian study. The reality is that FASD is thought to be more common in Native-American, African-American, and Hispanic populations as there are several published indicators of this reality. Unfortunately, as the 16th Surgeon General illustrated in his Culture, Race, and Ethnicity Report, most of the research in the US is focused on middle class, European-American populations, thereby limiting information about different cultures, races, and ethnicities. From a public health perspective this is a huge problems as most health scourges in society migrate from one cultural, race and ethnicity to others - so no one is safe. The most recent example of this is the opioid epidemic that has recently struck the US European-American community. The US would be in a much better position had it studied this problem in the African-American community where it has been a problem for decades, but which was not researched. When I asked Dr. Satcher about what he thought about the oversight he said that "Two wrongs do not make a right." He is absolutely correct, just because the country did not research the problems in African-Americas does not mean the problem should be ignored with European-Americans making it "Tit for Tat." So, I am trying to correct the problem of health disparities in America and the contribution I made to Wikipedia was a move to forward that quest. But, it is is not deemed good enough for what ever reason, that is fine with me. I will seek to correct public health problems in other ways. I just find it unfortunate there is a lack of understanding about how to correct the problems of public health in the US. When I worked with Julius Richmond (Carter's and Johnson's Surgeon General) he noted to institutionalize public health fixes you needed a strong science base, a mechanism to correct the public health problems, and political will to fix the problem. Part of creating political will is giving the public information that there is a problem. So, I will use other forms of media to do that - so far I have been able to get some National Public Radio attention to the problem of FASD and I am working with the National Academy of Science and National Academy of Medicine to address the issue. It will take time but I have shifted the Nation's public health policy several times in the past, so it will take some time but it will happen as the science will bear me out and after a while it will be unethical to ignore facts. Thanks for you help with this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlcbellmd (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not use secondary sources? There are lots of review articles on this topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at this immunologist - Adrian Liston - and try to determine whether or not this person merits an article on Wikipedia. It appears to be a new article (I am doing New Page Patrol at the moment) I am not familiar with what would be considered making a significant contribution to the field of medicine. This person appears to have had articles published in "Nature" and "Science", which is a nice start for determining notability. For help in making your decision, see the refs and see Google Scholar. If you can't do it let me know, and I will probably post on the project talk page. Thanks in advance. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:DGG is more of an expert in this than I. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, meets WP:PROF on he basis of the influence of his published work. Citations in Google scholar for his top articles are 660, 450,.... DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

For what little it may be worth, I took a look too, and I agree that he is notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: and @Tryptofish: Both of you, thanks very much. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

Seriously? What you are trying to do is not currently supported. You need to get consensus first. You were told to take it to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've responded to the second AN/I notice you gave to Jytdog - please bear in mind the closing remarks of Bbb23 "This is the second similar topic iniatated here by the OP. It's disruptive, and if it continues, the OP risks being blocked.". Please stop -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doc James. A new user MichaelCollier has been adding content to the Nystamus page. He's been stumbling a bit, and some is plain wrong (1 in 100 is neither "very rare" nor 0.01%). I get the feeling though, that he is trying to be constructive. It's not my subject, perhaps you would take a glance at it. WP:DONTBITE applies so I would prefer not to wade in templating and reverting. Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Martin of Sheffield. Removed the unreferenced text and provided some feedback. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You once asked me why I avoid Jytdog. The answer in short is that he tries to own articles and will never admit that he is wrong even in the most obvious cases. For an example please see his 4 reverts at Mylan, and the nonsense at Talk:Mylan. Could you try to talk some sense into him. And please tell him I asked you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

sure Doc James your thoughts are welcome there. Jytdog (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Gah you two have both broken 3RR. Try a RfC. Yes it is a controversial story.

Need a cup of coffee first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have not broken 3RR. Please count. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No you made three reverts (after the first addition of the content) and left an edit summary on the last stating if reverted again you would be reporting them. Which is blatant and deliberate gaming of the 3rr restriction in an edit war in order to keep your preferred content in the article. 3rr is a bright line, but it does not only become edit warring once you hit 4 reversions. Once challenged after the first addition you should have gone to the talk page to make your case for including the content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

From my understanding the introduction of the initial text counts as "one". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope. The easiest way to explain is to use 0rr as examples - if you add content to an article under 0rr, and someone removes it, you are forbidden to revert them and readd the content. If it is under 1rr, you can revert once. Sometimes information is removed in error etc or edit conflicts, 1rr allows that to be corrected. The reason BRD is best practice is because following 3rr, in an edit war the bias is towards inclusion (unless multiple editors get involved). The key part of WP:Edit warring is the line "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." The emphasis is included in the policy. When you intentionally go to 3rr in order to 'win' a dispute, its not the same as when an argument gets heated and people get sucked into the conflict. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Bias is actually towards status quo. One who wants to make a change needs consensus, not the one wishing to keep it as it is.

I have seen people blocked based on 3RR were the first edit was the introduction of content. And my explanation is what is often follow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I meant technical bias rather than editorial. If two editors engage in a 3rr edit war, the end result will be biased towards inclusion unless a third editor gets involved. Its often the case when someone is reported at the edit warring noticeboard that the article is locked into 'wrong version' because of that. After *discussion* yes the bias is generally towards the statuts quo. I have also seen editors blocked after 1 revert where the stated intent (to edit war) is obvious, but the block is for edit warring, not violating 3rr. As a policy issue - 3 reverts is 3 reverts, not 1 addition + 2 reverts. This is not generally a substantive issue, except where editors are under specific editing sanctions, at which point it comes into play in an AE report where the exact number of reverts means the difference between a further sanction or not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that one addition plus three reverts is a breach of 3RR, while three reverts is not, at least in my experience. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be better to stick with the normal use of the English language and WP:Edit Warring. "To revert is to undo the action of another editor." I added completely new information, and certainly on the 1st edit did not undo anything. Jytdog undid my edit four (4) times. He has obviously broken WP:3RR which is a bright line rule. If you want to change the meaning of the word "revert" please start a discussion on the talk page of WP:3RR.

Yes, I undid his reversions three (3) times, as he did not engage in polite conversation, rather blathering about Jon Stewart and Benghazi. As you very well know, Jytdog has a well-deserved reputation for this type of thing and has been blocked for similar things by arbcom. I don't see any reason to put up with his tactics of intimidation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Would not a RfC clarify matters? With respect to who was in the wrong on this one I am not going to comment further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

for the heads-up today; I was aware of the fact "completes suicide" is a phrase preferred by certain professionals, however, I was unaware of it being the correct term to use these days. I'd just been reading the main article, which states that people have been trying to change the term, hence why I made the edit. Thanks for your help, Zero^talk 17:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries User:Patient Zero Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you know any Wikipedia experts in the field of color vision?

There was an article I found here - http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/scientist-accidentally-developed-sunglasses-that-could-correct-color-blindness-180954456/?no-ist

and was wondering if the underlying research was notable enough for Wikipedia. 80.176.129.180 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Will look. Not believing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Doc_James,

In regards to your reversal of the Depersonalization Disorder article which I revised and brought up to standard, including updated recent treatments, I am of the view you don't know what you are talking about as I corrected syntax's, grammatical fragmentation's and inaccuracies. For example, you have reverted this text back onto the article:

Depersonalization disorder (DPD), also known as depersonalization-derealization syndrome, is a mental disorder in which the people have persistent or recurrent feelings of depersonalization and/or derealization.

I changed "the people" as linguistically and textually it is an inaccurate saying. I changed it to "the sufferer". However, you took it upon yourself to revert it back to a grammatically incorrect text and also revert it back to a sub-standard article. Shame on you. I suggest that you cease and desist from vandalising. I note you have become a 'compulsive reverter' and molest this article if any of the text if improved. I should ask you to leave it alone, if not, the least you can do is actually improve it yourself rather than engaging in your 'compulsive reverting' conduct. Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRedrick (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS We use person not suffer and we should be using secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc_James, Well if that is the case I look forward to seeing you replace "the people" to the person and for you to invest some time into this article of which urgently needs attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRedrick (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc_James, as you have taken an interest in this article it would be advisable that you constructively contribute to upgrading it and include new research / treatments off-label which are backed up by studies (Glover et al). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRedrick (talk • contribs) 01:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes plan to do some work on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)