Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 146

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140←Archive 144Archive 145Archive 146Archive 147Archive 148→Archive 150

Adult has a navbox on the right side. If it should be put at the bottom, I need to spend time changing the code which I think a bit not so necessary. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

We however use infoboxes. 95% of navboxes go at the bottom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Circulatory shock

Shock_(circulatory)#Management: It is important to keep the person warm to avoid hypothermia.

IMO, keep too warm can facilitate oxygen consumption. Is there a better way to write it since you're familiar with such medical emergency diseases? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that it good. You do not want them to be hot Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe there is an acceptable temperature range so patients won't be feeling hot just because they wanted to avoid cold? Alright, I originally thought warm = hot. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Definition of anemia

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Talk:Anemia.
Message added by Ntmamgtw (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sure replied User:Ntmamgtw Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Question

Do you miss User:Jytdog or glad that he is gone? Eschoryii (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Eschoryii well I think we all agreed that he messed up. The actions by arbcom IMO were out of proportion. It was obvious that he would never do that again. Yes IMO him being gone is a huge loss to the project. Even though of course he and I did not always agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Eschoryii (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hello Doctor James! Can you please tell me how the section about children added by Dent22st on the Dental Fear page can be improved? We are a dental student group of editors and would still like to add a section concerning children, but you have deleted it earlier. Many thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mg30dental (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Mg30dental the big thing that is required is following WP:MEDRS. Can you please share with the entire class? Other good advice is found here Template:Student Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Tom Edwards (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Tom Edwards yes I know I started the discussion... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A question arising from that discussion, but maybe tangential to it: what campaigns against the Copyright Directive has the WMF actually promoted? I haven't checked every last tweet, but the only one I'm aware of is changecopyright.org, which is a Mozilla Foundation project. (So, it's "funded by Google" in some partial and indirect way that would be OR to speculate about.) XOR'easter (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:XOR'easter a number of Wikipedia's had banners. This was the one EN WP used.[1] Each language sort of did their own thing.
A couple of blog posts like this one are from the WMF.[2]
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Re:Uptodate

Thank for your opinion for references from Uptodate.

I will check my edit and try to use review articles or medical organizations statements to replace Uptodate information.

Thanks --Wolfch (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Wolfch appreciate it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for disturbing, since Wolfch was mainly tracking my edits, I would like to explain my addition of UpToDate as the reference. Generally, I cite UpToDate when the material is included in its open preview version because, like others, I don't have full access to UpToDate all the time. Finally, I would like to thank you for facilitating the project that makes medical knowledge reach people around the world. I really think not only the rich has the right to get ahold of knowledge but also those who don't afford to pay the fee for education, database, etc. Let's keep allowing it to be cited when the content is open in the preview, or when there's really need to although the chance for such irreplaceable context is deemed very rare. Regards. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 07:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Does archive.org save versions? So that one can reference a specific version? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it does archive the open preview versions at the specific time points. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 08:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

monotonous diet

Hi Doc James. Is "monotonous (diet)" (end of first line on this link) a term in medical/ nutrition jargon? Thanks Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Rui Gabriel Correia have clarified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I see the term widely used, which is what made me wonder if it was an established term/ concept among professionals, or merely disseminated by popular science. Possibly from W. Armstrong Willis's paper on The Diet of Monotony? Thanks again. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
"monotony" simple means of little variety or mostly of one thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

People with v.s patients with

I just typed "patients with" as a search query in Google's search box. And the results were quite a few. Perhaps they're interchangeable? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 16:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Per our WP:MEDMOS we should be using "person with" rather than "patient with". Lots of work to done on WP to make this consistently true. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Vitamin deficiency article - a favor

I recently expanded Vitamin deficiency about 10X (includes borrowing history content from Vitamin) and submitted a question to DYK. I had asked Zefr to look of the expansion. Useful changes were made. If you have time, I would appreciate you also looking at the article before the DYK shows up on the home page. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:David notMD looks good :-) Made a few simplifications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, Many thanks. Just discovered User:Enterprisey "reply" tool. Super cool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Healthline

I think it qualifies the MEDRS as written by doctors and peer-reviewed. Regards. 1--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 10:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

User:It's gonna be awesome no it does not quality. It is not a good source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, okay, maybe because HealthLine is not a medical journal. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 10:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
It does not fulfill WP:MEDRS. It is not a major medical organization. It is not a reputable publisher. Much better sources exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
How to tell if it's reputable? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 11:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
It is not a government health organization like the CDC and NIH. It is not a reputable publisher. It is just a website. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

ClinCalc LLC

I notice you recently cited ClinCalc LLC. My question is how did you know ClinCalc LLC is a reputable publisher? And why the sale standings of the drugs in US market is encyclopedic content? Thanks. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 14:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Usage is not a medical claim of effectiveness so requirements for sourcing are not as high. This is based on US government data but ClinCalc just presents it in an easier to understand format. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Pier Paolo Pandolfi

I am writing regarding the article for Pier Paolo Pandolfi which you placed a notice on in December 2017. I believe this was due to a colleague who was editing Wikipedia in violation of the rules regarding conflict of interest. I am from the organization Pandolfi works for and have requested edits to the article on the talk page which have been responded to by another editor. These edits have consisted of removing and rewording content that was not properly sourced or were sourced mainly to the work of Pandolfi which violated the rules of Wikipedia. As an independent editor has reviewed the requests I have made and the article is now written in a neutral tone, I had requested that the notice be removed from the top of the page. The editor who has reviewed the edits has told me to first notify you to see if you would remove the tag. Their logic, as stated by them is "My logic is that since they placed the template, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected." Can you review my request on the talk page of the article and let me know if anything else is needed to be done so this notice can be removed? Thank you in advance. --BIHAKen (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

User:DGG your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I commented on the article talk page. Until there's a satisfactory version, the tag should remain. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Baroreflex

An admin says it doesn't violate the copyright of any party as the provided sources are in the public domain.

See:

  • Baroreflex A
  • Baroreflex B (Funding Information: Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research & National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH)

However,

Would you kindly determine if the most recent huge deletion is valid? Thanks. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 09:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the article! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 09:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Started the discussion on the talk page. Talk:Baroreflex#Claims_of_copyright_concerns Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Please stop edit warring. Conflating a reduction in mass shootings as an equivalence to "most criminal activity" is a misrepresentation. Suggesting that an effect on a very, very small subset of criminal activity supercedes the overriding data presented in the section is not an acceptable characterization. Please discuss the matter on the talk page.Anastrophe (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure have started a RfC Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#How_to_summarize_the_literature? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Neurogenic shock

Neurogenic shock has been tagged a template claiming "Blatant copyright violations". But I feel it's not the case. Hopefully, you would take a look at it. Regards. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 07:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay dealt with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Gratitude! I appreciate it. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 07:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

unreliable sources?

Snopes and American Council on Science and Health arent reliable (hpv)? explain. i have read RS

also, why did you erase all my type 1 diabetes edits?

faustman trial - list of reliable media outlets in one source: https://www.faustmanlab.org/news/#media-coverage

stem cells: New York Post, www.diabetes.co.uk, etc.

crispr cas9: www.diabetes.co.uk, https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(17)31247-3

yeast infection: Diabète Québec, Healthline

methyldopia: University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, https://www.jci.org/articles/view/97739

type 3c: https://www.rd.com/health/conditions/type-3c-diabetes-study/

vitamin d: The Indian Express, Express.co.uk, NDTV.com, www.diabetes.co.uk

for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.53.146 (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you've listed the sites I've referenced (including a non-editable wiki from Kenyon College). How are these unreliable, and yes, many reliable sources can have ads. 172.219.53.146 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay so you have decided not to read WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The charities are secondary sources. "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources." Why don't we remove citations #8, #10 (ADA - a charity), and so on...? Also, isnt the research section supposed to summarize research? The BCG vaccine has made headlines. Also, why is Snopes unreliable 172.219.53.146 (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
You were also provided similar advice here [11]
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please answer my questions. 172.219.53.146 (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
No press releases by charities are not high quality secondary sources.
Yes Snopes.com is also not a high quality secondary source.
Yes the research section is supposed to summarize high quality secondary sources that discusses the research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The charity article is a secondary source. "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources."

Why is snopes not reliable? "Snopes aims to debunk or confirm widely spread urban legends. The site has been referenced by news media and other sites, including CNN,[20] MSNBC,[21] Fortune, Forbes, and The New York Times.[22] By March 2009, the site had more than 6 million visitors per month.[23] Mikkelson runs the website out of his home in Tacoma, Washington.[24]" "Jan Harold Brunvand, a folklorist who has written a number of books on urban legends and modern folklore, considered the site so comprehensive in 2004 that he decided not to launch one of his own to similarly discuss the accuracy of various legends and rumors.[13]

In 2012, FactCheck.org reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases.[28][29] In 2012, The Florida Times-Union reported that About.com's urban legends researcher found a "consistent effort to provide even-handed analyses" and that Snopes' cited sources and numerous reputable analyses of its content confirm its accuracy.[30] Mikkelson has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias, but added that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends.[28]"

172.219.53.146 (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

But not a high quality secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The policies do not care of your opinion of "quality", James. Rather, it is clear that they are reliable. Quality is subjective... site design? colors? Number of articles? 172.219.53.146 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Fortunately, the policies describe what is considered a quality source. Like, seriously, just read the tl;dr box at the top of WP:MEDRS. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Fluticasone

Hello. Please can you help fix the incoming links to Fluticasone? In particular, it's linked from some templates (the first five here) which are used on a few hundred pages. Some of them can probably be unlinked as the individual preparations follow. Others such as GSK need to go to one of a set of articles which are confusingly similar to the layman and could benefit from an expert eye. Thanks, Certes (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure User:Certes done the first 5. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.. and sorry to be cheeky but there's one more link we're not confident of fixing without a specialist: Template:Structural properties of major testosterone esters links to dab Androgen (medication). (done) Certes (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hi, I'm a medico in Australia, and added the (Australian?) pronunciation of tardive dyskinesia which I noted you removed. I'm not 'thingy' about wikiepedia contributions and find the 'wars' tedious, but was just wondering why you removed the IPA code I inserted on the first line? Cheers Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.57.52 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Pete. We put the pronunciation in the infobox to keep the first sentence from getting cluttered. I am not sure if what you added was the same as what was already there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

hyperfocus

can we medicalise it a fair bit better than my efforts? Thanks E.3 (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean User:E.3? We generally want to write in easier to understand language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
the article is legitimised in my opinion as a medical article due to the 2019 consensus statement on ADHD. It needs work? do you agree? E.3 (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The image that I found for instance is being reused on the internet such as in additude magazine. So I think the article needs work if its being taken so seriously E.3 (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

ADHD

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric, neurodevelopmental disorder. It is characterized by inattention, and/or hyperactivity and impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development.

DSM-V? why don't we just say what it says? "difficulty controlling behaviour" sounds so pejorative to me. E.3 (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Psychiatric conditions are described based on their symptoms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
the dsm doesn't say "difficulty controlling behaviour". it says hyperactivity and impulsivity.... where does "difficulty controlling behaviour" come from?E.3 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The infobox and the introduction does not say what any of the references say. It is original research to say otherwise. We need to follow WP:MEDRS. E.3 (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
We paraphrase content from sources, we do not copy and paste it. We also write in easier to understand language per WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Semi-Protected edit request on 3/5/19 for the article Bipolar disorder to include a link for Ronald Braunstein

Hello Doc James: Just a quick note to update you about a Semi-Protected edit request which has been posted on the talk page for the article Bipolar disorder. Perhaps if you have spare time you might share your medical expertise and extensive experience as a Wikipedia Administrator in order to evaluate the proposal to incorporate the following text at the end of the section entitled Society and Culture

In an effort to ease the social stigma associated with bipolar disorder, the orchestra conductor Ronald Braunstein cofounded the

ME/2 Orchestra with his wife Caroline Whiddon in 2011. Braunstein was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1985 and his concerts with the ME/2 Orchestra were conceived in order to create a welcoming performance environment for his musical colleagues, while also raising public awareness about mental illness.[1] [2]

  1. ^ "David Gram for the Associated Press (2013-12-27). "For this orchestra, playing music is therapeutic", The Boston Globe".
  2. ^ "Franz Strasser and David Botti (2013-1-7). "Conductor with bipolar disorder on music and mental illness", BBC News".

The can be no doubt that your expert opinion would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration and best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia. Respectfully yours, 104.207.219.150 (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)PS

What is your relation to the topic in question? These details can go on the article about the person in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Appears User:Casliber has added Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverted your edit

Hi Doc James,

I reverted your edit on the Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome article, whereby you deleted a section with the comment "source poor".

In my opinion, the source in question meets the criteria for WP:MEDRS. I added something to the talk page. Thomas pow s (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes you need better sources. And no that book IMO is not a MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I responded to your text on the talk page for CPPS. Thomas pow s (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I responded again. I do not understand if I can re-add the material or not. Thomas pow s (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I have responded at the page in question regarding how we should summarize the text in question. Wondering your thoughts there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I responded on the talk page. Thanks. Thomas pow s (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Is this a RS to cite for adding health benefit-type material in Cherry juice? Atsme 📣 📧 03:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Atsme no the journal in question has been listed as a predatory publisher. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Atsme 📣 📧 03:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
One more question - if the publisher is included in Beall's list, but the Journal (separately) is considered credible/peer reviewed/etc. does that matter? What if the material published in a journal whose publisher is on Beall's list is corroborated by another journal that is not on Beall's list? Can we use cite that source? For example - this article corroborates parts of the review published here, the latter being by a publisher on Beall's list. Atsme 📣 📧 18:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hormone replacement therapy

I just finished a pretty significant rewrite of Hormone replacement therapy, lots of low quality refs and outdated info. Would you mind taking a gander? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure will look as I am able. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your extensive work on the article. Great stuff. One small question, what lead to your organizing the health effects in the sequence that you did? Based on frequency or strength of evidence or a combination of the two? I originally had them alphabetically because I had difficulty with this as so much of the analysis is evolving. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thai Bloom page Deleted by you

I was going to update the page with new citations from news events, but found out you deleted the page in 2017. I looked at the reasons for deletion, it doesn't have anything to do with Thai Bloom. Whoever created the page was banned, but that doesn't mean the content and page should be banned. I found it years ago and updated it occasionally, but it's sad to see someone delete it so people can't find information about Thai Bloom on Wiki anymore.

four tildes (24.21.110.245 (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)).

Okay? There were issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Heal

There is a 2017 documentary entitled Heal directed by Kelly Noonan on Netflix expounding the benefits of mind body healing. I don't believe any of it but the people in the documentary sure think sitting in a quiet room can heal cancer. Can this documentary be cited as authority to Wiki articles? Do you have to believe something to add it? I would cite it somewhere to don't be fooled people. But what I am trying to sort out is the no personal point of view principle. Should Wiki readers have this information even though I don't accept it? Yet there must be some benefit to relaxation, stress reduction and meditation. Where and who gets to draw the line? In the Energy Medicine article could I add a sentence: "Followers of this mode of treatment should watch the Heal documentary." Would you delete that sentence? Maybe I should be asking this on the article talk page but I value your opinion, Eschoryii (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Eschoryii When it comes to health we need references per WP:MEDRS
That documentary is not an appropriate reference just like the DailyMail is not an appropriate reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That was a quick answer. Were you reading as I typed? You don't need to respond further. Eschoryii (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Doc James Check out my added sentence to the third paragraph in Mind-body interventions article. You may think that Heal should not be mentioned at all. Delete if I am wrong. Eschoryii (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The ref gives me a warning. Not a major source / opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_146&oldid=1259640404"