User talk:Doc James
I don't understand why exactly you undid my edit. I particularly don't understand why you undid the part of the edit that concerned Serotonin Syndrome. Please explain. Thanks! Dfdemt (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
You added "Its use has increased since Darvocet was withdrawn from the market and all medications containing hydrocodone were moved from Schedule III to Schedule II in late 2014" and the ref was from 2004 thus does not support this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my mistake. After my last edit in which I added the references, I think I must have clicked cancel instead of save page. Is there any way you can put back the portion of the edit that contains the info on serotonin syndrome? I will cite the references within the next 24 hours if so. I have to go back and locate the articles again. It would just help me out a bit. Thanks for your help! Dfdemt (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Pelvic inflammatory disease references
I'm trying to understand the constructive edit that you made to the article. I believe that your intent was to remove a reference that probably is not needed, am I correct? I understand why it's not controversial, but what I'm wondering is this: are two references are better than one? If one becomes unavailable or is unavailable to someone, is it not better to have a second reference that supports the same statement? Also, I know I am not completely familiar with the discussion that is ongoing concerning the reliability of medical sources. But not are not some of the online web resources considered at least adequate for a layperson? I understand the idea that a medical journal is a better reference than an article from Mayo Clinic. But that doesn't disqualify the article from Mayo Clinic, does it? I don't want to waste your time, and I don't want to waste my time trying to find good references in support of the pelvic inflammatory disease article and I don't want to have to waste your time having you go back and take out all the references that I have found. Is it perhaps better to put the references that I found in side of no wiki tags? Similar to what you did in the lead? It seems to me, and of course I could be wrong because I'm just acting as a copy editor, that the article I relies heavily upon the one source. Am I understand this correctly?
Also, in light of my past editing history, would you be willing to give me helpful suggestions so that I will be able to recognize the potential of making a "controversal" edit and hesitate to do so without consensus?
The Signpost: 11 March 2015
Respected sir Doc James, (Johnalvin4050 here)First of all lot i offer lot of prayers for your good health and prosperity.Today, when i logged in my Wikipedia account i saw your message that you have added me in spam list along with my reference.It is very disappointing for me as i am big fan and lover of Wikipedia. I personally accept my mistake for adding reference in wrong way but believe me i was innocent because i was no idea about such violation of Wikipedia guidelines.But now i have read all guidelines regarding editing which makes me very shameful because i was violating Wikipedia guidelines.Please forgive and remove the label of spam because i swear to you that i will not violate such guidelines next time and i will be careful.I hope you will forgive me on condition that i will do not violate these guidelines again.i am eagerly waiting for you kind and positive response.(Johnalvin4050 here)
Thanks for your kind reply but please remove the label of spam because it is scarring me because i swear to you i will not do anything like that in future.sir, i am giving you my words.
This was the message I received from you for which I was talking about sir! "'Doc James mentioned you on the Spam-blacklist talk page in "healthncare.info". 5 hours ago" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhonalvin4050 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
spam blacklist unheralded addition by you of my account ?
Did you also add my name to one of your alleged spam complaint entries ? If so- is it customary or mandatory to inform the editor who is your target of your having done so with a link ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Doc James below is a summary which shows that Bluerassberry had approved his part of the GA, and Doctor JoeE was doing his...
About my Editing
Hey Doc James,
I want to ask you what makes my links not appropriate?
This link is a roundup answered by therapists and experts confirmed by many therapists websites like GoodTherapy.org and Psychology Today.
You can check their names over those two website or would you like to send you their profiles links there?
And what I can do more to bring back my links on the pages that I edited?
I've put the templates on the two articles u mentioned on the talk page...will tell the two guys at our wiki, who write the most of the medical articles to fix that...Cheers :) --Ivan VA (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
A block or warning at your discretion should be considered for the edits going on at Guillain Barre syndrome by an IP address seen here  and here . I am now considering applying for rollback privileges to make it easier to undo such vandalism in the future. It's a little more tedious when they break it up into multiple edits. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This morning I edited an article on cirrhosis . The following review article was my source
however , it has been removed stating the lack of citation of high quality evidence. Can you please help me ? I am new to Wikipedia . Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshiteejsode (talk • contribs) 10:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"Changes ... activation." with no ref
"One... matrix. " with no ref
And this primary source "Rockey, D. (n.d.). Stellate cell/HCV interactions in hepatic fibrosis. Gastroenterology, 2117-2118"
This which you added "Host risk factors include human promoter polymorphisms such as TGF-β1 and angiotensin as well as host immune phenotype variations , such as immunosuppressed patients ." sourced to "Huang H, et al. Hepatology 2004; 40:230A"
I have proposed that you be banned from editing circumcision related pages.
African trypanosomiasis on ro.wiki
Here is one of multiple references (in this case, CBS News) where she speaks about the challenges of the disease and, to my mind at least, raises public awareness of same:
If you are inclined to reconsider her exclusion, that would be appreciated.
Your edit at Talk:Electronic cigarette
I know you're a bit too experienced for user warning templates but it says it better than I can.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Electronic cigarette, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. SPACKlick (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
What is it you want to discuss? Perhaps if you could be more specific about the style manual, I could address that issue. My client, Lori Cohen, sent you an email. I trust you received it.
Thanks for letting me know. Where do I disclose it?
Below is the email i sent to your gmail account, asking you to please refrain from editing the MST page. Here is the email. We do not want to engage in a editing war, however, it is clear you plan to keep imposing your view and only your view on this intervention that is supported by credible independent sources like Blueprints for Health Children.
I want to start a formal mediation process so that this can be resolved. Below is the email I sent you, to which you did not respond. You leave no choice but to get third parties involved. I would really like to understand your agenda.
Thank you for response. I think on some issues we have a genuine difference of perspective and are going to need to agree to disagree. This takes me to my next request. We are very concerned about the way you have chosen to restructure the page. Anyone who comes to it and begins reading might infer that MST doesn’t work. That may be your opinion but that is certainly not a widely held view. The references at the bottom of the page list a number of credible sources that disagree with this view.
We are requesting that you stop editing the page from the original layout that was posted years ago, putting effectiveness at the bottom of the page.
We have looked at many other pages—psychotherapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotherapy), Rational Emotive Therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_emotive_behavior_therapy), Cognitive Behavior Therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy, to name but a few. We even checked every intervention listed in the 128-page United Nations’ Compilation of Evidence-Based Family Skills Training Programmes. None of those with Wiki pages had effectiveness and criticism/adverse effects at the top at the page as you are insisting on putting them.
As I’ve said before, we will leave in the material you inserted. However we feel your format shows an intention to put MST in a bad light. Though I applaud your dedication for policing Wikipedia for false medical information, your extreme caution in this case is unwarranted.
In the coming weeks we will change the structure of the page back to a format that is more typical for Wikipedia entries of this kind. We respectfully request that you not change these edits.
A couple other question
Declined ArbCom Case
The arbitration request concerning electronic cigarette articles has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC) See Arbitration request. It was the opinion of some of the arbitrators that the issue may still be resolved by the community. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I dont intend to make a big deal out of this, I just was triggered by the lead sentence which reminded me of a book I read in high school. They discouraged using the word "when" after a noun. e.g. "Hypothermia is when...". I'm not such a great writer myself but I thought I'd give it a try. Do you think the current wording is the best possible wording? I actually googled for the text of the book to see what they replaced it with before I made the edit, but I couldn't find it. —— 03:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hypoplastic left heart syndrome
Hi Doc, Interesting edit on Hypoplastic left heart syndrome This sentence This technique increases/decreases the pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and thereby improves systemic blood flow The sentence originally was "increases", was changed to "decreases" (here) (Dec 2013) then, just changed back to "increases" (here) just now. Not sure what is correct. Would you please take a look if you have the time? Much appreciated. Jim1138 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The reference pages are not just website, one of them is a peer reviewed journal. The other is a comprehensive literature on Yoga, Ayurveda and ancient historical medicine in India. Users should go through it. Thanks, I will also try to add more references. Pinmishra (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Pinmishra (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 19 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Deletion review for Laurence David Gaz
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Laurence David Gaz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Hi Doc James, I was trying yesterday to see how could I translate some page in Italian (starting with was ones like "apple pie"). Honestly it is a bit more difficult than I expected due to all this source code. It could take me some time. DO you have any advice and know how can I be a part of the team and receive pages to translate? Valentinogarosi (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)valentinogarosiValentinogarosi (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 March 2015
On the off chance
Might you know anybody with an interest or expertise on the question I posed at Talk:Stylometry?
Dyslexia GA article/passed
Hi James, there's a bit of disagreement on this page about whether the eponym Wegener's granulomatosis should be used or (IMO and the opinion of mainstream medical/scientific organizations) the term granulomatosis with polyangiitis should be used given that it is more medically descriptive. The fact that it's also an eponym of a pathologist with Nazi ties is also another reason for moving away from this terminology. I've opened a discussion about it on the talk page since RichieZ seems determined to keep it in (he seems ready to edit war over it). His justification appears to be that because the literature on granulomatous mastitis is rather sparse (true, only a few PubMed reviews in the last decade) and uses the term WG (because the literature is older), that we should continue to use that term. I do not agree with this reasoning since I think we should examine the literature as a whole (i.e., if GM literature preferred WG as the term but the rest of the literature did not, surely we would not use WG over GPA). It's true that I do see WG still used in the literature, but it's clear that it has fallen out of favor and been supplanted by GPA as the main term for this disease. There are even papers and reviews discussing this nomenclature controversy and explaining why we should move away from the old eponym. What are your thoughts on this? I'm considering opening it up to the Wikiproject Medicine talk page as well for additional community opinions. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
A page you deleted has been recreated
On March 19 you deleted Just Rich Gates with the comment "Paid for advertisement removed." The page has been recreated by a relatively new editor who has themselves tagged it as an advert, based on that I'm assuming it could be a paid recreation with the intention of it being overlooked by placing the advert tag. PhantomTech (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Use of Wikipedia Photos for the 68W Combat Medic Textbook
Dr. James, my name is Michael W. Davis. I am a curriculum writer for the U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School at FT Sam Houston, TX. I am currently the photograph editor for a textbook we are producing for the 68W Combat Medic Handbook, which is a textbook being produced (non-profit) by the U.S. Army and published by the U.S. Army's Medical Department publishing department (The Borden Instutue). This publishing department works directly with the U.S. Army's Office of the Surgeon General. Dr. James you have released several photographs on wikipedia that display many types of medical conditions such as otitis media, strep pharyngitis, peritonsilar abcess etc.... The U.S. Army Medical Department would like to use your displayed photographs for the textbook being published. V/r. (unsigned edit by 18.104.22.168, 09:41, March 23, 2015)
Around 55 students, with about 5 per group. The topics covered are: Au Nanoparticles and Chemotherapy, Chemicals that are Both Toxic and Essential, Importance of Iron Homeostasis, Zinc Deficiency and Psychiatric Disorders, Evolution of Metal Ions in Biological Systems, Chromium Picolinate – Diabetes Treatment or Snake Oil? Hydrogenases as Catalysts for Fuel Cells, Li Treatment for Bipolar Disorder – Why Li and not Na or K? Ag Nanoparticles and Chemotherapy, Biotransformation of As, Zn and the Treatment of HIV–AIDS, LithiumCHM333 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I started looking through histories of pages related to the list above and, with some detective work, did manage to find the class, CHM333 at the University of Toronto Mississauga. I'm going to reach out to the instructor via email and will go over WikiEdu, support, class pages, and all the usual information. But I think what would help a lot is a phone call to go over MEDRS/MEDMOS and/or some of the specific issues students are running into. Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed), but also @Doc James if this is one WikiMed would be into supporting. PS: I stopped going through articles when I figured out which class it was, but these are also student articles: Chromium(III) picolinate, User:CHM333five/sandbox, and Gold Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Disclosure of paid editing
John was edit warring on my talk page to restore comments made by other editors. In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page on 19:14, 29 May 2014. He then immediately blocked me on 19:18, 29 May 2014. This was only four minutes later he decided to block me. He wrote "Very well, I will not restore any more items that you delete from your talk page. I will block you instead." I was involved in a dispute with him in regard to comments made by other editors on my talk page. An admin should not block an editor because they did not like being warned to not restore comments on an editor's talk page.
In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of any restrictions to the article. I think this was a violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK. The admin John is well aware of the sanctions. Roxy the dog disagreed with the actions by the admin John. Then the admin John suggested there should be further sanctions against both me and Roxy the dog without a logical reason. User:Kww explained John's comment was "problematic".
In November, User:Roxy the dog was asking User:PhilKnight for advice. User:Phil Knight replied on November 15, 2014 that "I'm somewhat concerned with actions of John (talk · contribs), and think we would should perhaps consider a WP:RFC/ADMIN."
John was previously warned not to restore comments on my talk page. John agreed. Later in November 2014 John restored comments after I deleted them. John appears to be involved in edit warring on my talk page on two separate occasions. Please remember that John has been notified of the sanctions.
The latest questionable block was in part for this comment against User:Ronz. See WP:NOTCENSORED. It appears John is too emotionally WP:INVOLVED in this topic area. QuackGuru (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
negative antiquated language in the articleon Downs Syndrome.
As the parent of a child with Down's, the Wikipedia article on 'Down's Syndrome' while informative in places is unacceptably offensive and full of archaic insensitive language throughout....
I do not accept Downs is a disease, a disorder, an abnormality, a failure of nature or cell/gene formation...or any other negative connotation advised within the article in Wikipedia....the reference to what women 'tend' to do if genetic differences are identified prenatally I would suggest reflects more society's and the medical worlds denegration of the difference rather than Downs itself! And you have a role in that mindset.
cells divide differently..that's all! And difference is good and to be celebrated. It is no less acceptable than different eye colour....would those women have been facing the dilemma of termination over the colour of their child's eyes? As with any offspring, they are all different, some with strengths in one field and less strength in another....
In educating the masses (scientific or society in general) you have a significant opportunity to change mindsets on this perfectly natural difference....please replace the antiquated language...If you would like any help feel free to contact me or any one of the many Downs Organisations working hard to redress the perpetuation of such negative language.
Of course all this applies to any genetic difference, like Cri du Chat etc...worth a full audit I would suggest.
Onychomycosis treatment with mentholated ointment
RE: Changes made August 23, 2014 The change note had: Please use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS, case series are not sufficiently reliable or notable. I am aware of this but there are no secondary sources and probably never will be due to there being no profit in this treatment. However anecdotal and unreviewed this is, it is not a hippy-dippy naturopathic magic crystal and chakras blog. It's JABFM published: http://www.jabfm.org/content/24/1/69.full.pdf Novel Treatment of Onychomycosis using Over-the-Counter Mentholated Ointment: A Clinical Case Series Richard Derby MD, Patrick Rohal MD, Constance Jackson MD, Anthony Beutler MD, and Cara Olsen PhD, MPH,
So, I assume, this will simply be deleted if restored. How does it not get deleted? How do I get secondary sources? I do hope you noted I said it was a clinical trial and anecdotal with mixed and subjective results. I am not an anti big pharma vaccines cause autism nutter.
I would ignore this matter but I did the trial on myself starting July 2014 and it seems to have, at least partially, cured my 25 year toenail fungal infection, all toes, both feet after about 8 months of a light daily coating on the surface of all toes. I have modified the treatment by only using mentholated mineral oil after the first month of using Vick's. I found the eucalyptus oil irritating. There was no clear visible effect for several weeks. The first major event was in month 2 when both large toe nails simply fell off. There was no pain involved. Theory: The fungus inhibits the immune system and treatment weakened the fungus so that the immune system reasserted itself and rejected the especially heavily infected large toe toenails as foreign bodies. No other toenails became lose. The toenails did not change themselves. That is to say the appearance was the same, but new growth seems to have come in infection free. The current growth is clear and very much resembles the pictures in the paper I cited. BTW I have tried oral treatment of fluconazole and it made me too ill to continue use after three days. The oil is actually pleasant and seems to have the side effect of softening the skin surrounding the nail and preventing it from becoming ingrown.
I do not believe the effects are placebo but I do wonder if the result is the menthol or the mineral oil/petroleum jelly itself that inhibits fungal growth.
I did use an extremely high quality review source of an overall evaluation of all EBM for spine pain. This is the current standard if care. Please redact your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitzijak (talk • contribs) 03:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
back and neck pain
The review article actually examens all EBM for both neck and back pain. As you know, the evidence for spine surgery is minimal at best- yet there is a large amount if space dedicated to it on the page. Both cervical and lumbar Epidurals show at least mild benefit in acute pain and definitely reduce unneccessary surgey.
Most important is RF ablation to the facets and SI which has superb class A evidence. I quoted the most famous RCT for SI RF which is newer, the Levin review article goes over all facet RF. Both are clearly excellent procedures. Please undo your edits. If you feel it necessary I can find the links to other RCTs- the text really should remain.
I hope this is OK. You once invited others to do this when we notice it. Just undo if it's a problem.
On another matter: Jacob and I are waiting to hear back from Lila on our proposed wording for the email to Fiona Godlee. I'll let the board know when it is finally sent.
Problem ip range
These contribs from Hospital Corporation of America seem to follow a pattern! focused on new drugs! inserting info that really doesn't belong, but probably in good faith. Any ideas how to address? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
If there is an Arb or ANI case along the lines of what you're describing, can you send me a ping (when/if it ever arises)? I'd be interested in looking at a specific case. CorporateM (Talk) 16:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
please take a look
Help with sources
Are these two websites appropriate secondary sources? I have the feeling they are more tertiary sources.
About Change in invention of the Vitamin
Sir, I tried my best to put some reference for it the problem is I cant access the article how ever now I found one reference. I have found this material which is from an institute that you can't verify online. Thats why I kept the abstract less journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbalasubramanyam (talk • contribs) 05:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi James, when you have a chance can you help me clean up what's going on this page please? I've done a fair amount of trimming so far but there's more content in there that has source that seems questionable to me. If you can, I'd like to get your take on what's left as I'm sure there's more to trim. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
add to hearing aid sock farm list
Former name of the company is Watson Pharmaceuticals. Major editor has a pretty upbeat opinion of company and username: Watsonwiki. Has been editing since the days when the company was called Watson.
Not sure what the protocol is for these things and want to be sure I do it right as I have been a very vocal critic of those who make COI allegations in response to most every content dispute. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 11:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Ebola virus disease
"Blood products such as packed red blood cells, platelets or fresh frozen plasma may also be used. Other regulators of coagulation have also been tried including heparin in an effort to prevent disseminated intravascular coagulation and clotting factors to decrease bleeding. Antimalarial medications and antibiotics are often used before the diagnosis is confirmed, though there is no evidence to suggest such treatment helps. A number of experimental treatments are being studied."
Can we write: Antimalarial medications and antibiotics are often used before the diagnosis is confirmed, though there is no evidence to suggest such treatment helps. A number of experimental treatments are being studied., or this reference is only for first of this frase? Do you know a reference for second part? Lleó Pastor (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
...was a huge collaborative effort of scores of researchers under NIH funding that is something of a prototype for the importance of offsetting commercially financed research with publicly funded. It was arguable the single most important data point leading major treatment guidelines to shift from first line atypicals to simply recommending an antipsychotic. Pretty rare to sit through a psychosis talk where it is not mentioned.
I understand the primary research concern but if it were up to me I'd leave at least a short mention.
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_11#Category:Anesthesiology_and_palliative_medicine_journals has been relisted for further consensus, in case you are interested. Brandmeistertalk 21:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost, 1 April 2015