User talk:Jmh649/Archive 32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cerebrospinal fluid

Hi! Could you please add some more information about this image here? It's currently the first image on the cerebrospinal fluid article. Mainly whether it is human CSF and how it was retrieved.

Although, do you think you could obtain a good image (or a few) under a microscope? I think that would contribute to the article a lot more. Thanks a lot! Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Human sample taken from the L3/L4 disk space via usual technique. I do not do the microscopy. That is done by pathology. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 05:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I updated the file description. Thanks again. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Translators Without Borders

How do I sign up for log in? - AnakngAraw (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems I cannot sign up using an alias, like here in Wikipedia? (See here) - AnakngAraw (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

E-mail

Hi, about your e-mail. I have subscribed to the indicated Google group. Sorry for answering so late, I have not checked my discussion page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks at Wikimania now. Will get things more in order when I return.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 10:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Jmh649

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Hormone Replacement Therapy. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Meetup at Wikimania

Hi James, wanted to talk to you over the collaboration with the journals, but only saw you in the academia session this afternoon, which you left earlier. Hope it will work out later on. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Great thanks. Yes an exciting project. We will hopefully have something published soon.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 03:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on here

Doc James, I am contacting you because you are a member of WP:MEDICINE who has contributed to the article Circumcision in the past. There is an active discussion right now at Talk:Circumcision#Proposed_new_photo_File:Rituelle_Beschneidung.jpg_does_not_improve_this_article_along_Wikipedia_guidelines. An editor has suggested adding a new image of the procedure to the article Circumcision, and there is a discussion about whether this is the best image to use in the article. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Zad68 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! A follow up question or two at the Talk page, if you wouldn't mind. Zad68 14:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Osteoporosis

Dear Doc James:

OK. Thanks.

Can you suggest a good overview of treatment recommendations for osteoporosis? I was thinking of starting a separate Wikipedia article for "Management of Osteoporosis" to include a table of the different treatment options with the best information I could find suggesting which one to use when, hoping that knowledgeable people would help make it real. I'm an engineer and a statistician. My wife needs to be on an osteoporosis drug, but they all seem to have serious side effects, and I've so far been unable to find a good overview that would recommend different therapies depending on your condition. This may be a bad idea, but I thought that if I started the article and provided the basic outline, others might be willing to fill in some of the pieces needed to make it useful. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hay David. I think this is a great idea and am more than happy to help you find the best quality literature. We already have some on the current page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 11:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation

I'm also interested to find out more about this translation project. Heard about it via Twitter and then a reply to a question on AfrophoneWikis. What is required for projects to sign on? Is there any dovetailing with efforts to build basic science content, or other development-related content in the languages concerned?--A12n (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We are concentrating on 80 high importance heavily viewed medical articles. This project involves first improving and than translating the content in to as many other languages as possible.
TWB is leading the translation aspect of the project and is looking for volunteers to help. I am coordinating efforts at WP:TTF and we are looking for help adding the translated content to the appropriate Wiki and improving the concentration before translation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 11:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Where will be the WikiProject Medicine Lunch tommorrow?

Which room of Venue? or some where else? --Shujen Chang (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Will be in a room. I will be posting tomorrow am.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 03:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't attend but I boldly added "diff queue review for articles of particular concern" at the end of the proposed agenda because I'm guessing you'd like to give it at least a few minutes if it fits in. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll explain in more detail later: Basically, asking med specialty research grad students or similar to review a queue of diffs on articles that WikiProject Medicine decides are important enough to keep accurate that you might want to do that. I hope the meetup went well. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I have been thinking of getting a summer student to do this. I applied for one last year but did not get one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 18:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, it might be completely redundant with what happens naturally on big wikis like enwiki. Maybe you could emphasize the ratio between the number of native readers of a language who are not also English readers compared to the number of articles on their language's Wikipedia in your next application. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes TWB is working on developing that data for our upcoming press release. If you are interested in being involved with public outreach / explanation of this project we would love someone to help with this aspect on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 11:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Management of Osteoporosis

Hi, Doc James:

I'm glad you like the idea of a separate article on "Management of Osteoporosis" and agreed to help with it. I'll get started today searching for review articles on PubMed, as you suggested. I also plan to notify a cousin, who is an epidemiologist and a referee for several technical journals. She may also suggest some articles.

Is it reasonable to title the article "Prevention and Management of Osteoporosis"? Or are the two topics sufficiently different that it it would be better to focus only on "Management of Osteoporosis"?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes let start out with Management of osteoporosis. Short titles are better. Also per the MOS only the first letter is capatalized. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 15:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation project

Thanks James! I am interested in at least trying to support the project - the first article that you have sent across to me is really good. Let me know how I could help. If I don't manage (time wise) I will send it across to the Polish Chapter friends. Kaiho (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

PubMed access

Hello, Doc James:

I just successfully registered with PubMed and received an email acknowledgment with a link to complete the activation process, which I did. If this does NOT give me "full access", please let me know what else to do.

Thanks again. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Searching PubMed for secondary sources?

Hi, Doc James:

In PubMed, how do I limit the search to review articles? I found a field called "Secondary Source ID", but it looks like I need to specify a value or range of values, and I don't know how to do that. A search for "osteoporosis[Title/Abstract]" found 40337 items. I selected "Secondary Source ID" for a second field but without specifying a value of acceptable range.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Pubmed usually only gives you abstracts of high quality articles. Lead has explained well how to limit your search to reviews. If you need further help let me know. For full access I can give you a hand for a few if you do not have a library account.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 04:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Eschar

Hello Jmh, Hello My core,

thank you for your quick answers. (This is cross posted in the medicine portal and on Jmhs' talk page as per his request.) My core and you, Jmh, answered the questions I raised halfway. Namely you state An eschar is dry, black, hard necrotic tissue. The picture in the WP-article does indeed show no such thing. While the scab shown it might be dry and hard, it is certainly not black. (Wherefore I assume it is not an Eschar.) Also, since you made the distinctions clear, might it not be necessary to alter the article about wound healing (to which scab redirects) in such a way that the logical distinction becomes clear? The caption under the image in question also remains in its illogical state. I raised the question because I did and do not feel qualified to edit medical articles and the logic of both of them seemed contradictory.

Your

--Abracus (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Fame?

I presuming you knew about this? [1] Congratulations on your fame and fortune... :) Fayedizard (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I had not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 11:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I too was about to extend my congratulations! ;) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick rough edit of a stub

G'day! I just did a temporary quick edit of a medical stub - it was one of the examples I'd researched for the Wikimania talk, and it had a bunch of real marketing-type statements for a medical product (hydrocolloid dressings). I still think it needs quite a bit of work, and will come back to it in the future to do it properly (and to tidy up references and so on). But thought a quick and dirty job was better than waiting till I could do it properly. Hope that's ok. Have a good week!

Hilda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildabast (talkcontribs) 20:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: about the Cochrane reviews

Hi! I forgot to mention that Cochrane had an artificial way of dating for its citations (for citation impact purposes), which doesn't accurately date the reviews. We've negotiated with them to fix this prospectively, but it's a major problem with existing reviews. On PubMed Health we include the last updated year: so you'll see I've cited a review that appears to be in 2006 - but if you look at it on PubMed Health or in the Cochrane Library, you'll see it was updated in 2010, so it is an updated review. We hope to get on top of this in the coming months, but I couldn't see how to show it in the citation here. (Plus I forgot to sign the previous message - sorry, I will get the hang of this!) Hildabast (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Good!

Glad my first one was ok - still needs quite a bit of work, but the worst is gone. I'll pick a few here and there to tinker with. But if you've got something that you think really needs solving and you don't have enough hands on deck to do it, let me know. Now that editing info isn't my day job any more, it doesn't fully suck to do it in my own time. ;) Hildabast (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

PubMed article types have so far not worked for me

Hi, Doc James: With "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=osteoporosis", filtering on "Article Types" seems not to work for me with either Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, or Firefox: I get 56500 articles seemingly no matter what I select or don't select under "Article Type". Selecting "Publication dates" = 5 years reduces the number to 15507. Also selecting Species: Human reduces it further to 12158. Any suggestions about what to do to get the "Article types" filter to work? (I'm also asking LeadSongDog, who also offered suggestions on how to use PubMed.) Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Try this link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=osteoporosis&filters=Review Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

primary or secondary which NCI is primary?

Not all of NCI is secondary. Only some of it is. Some of the NCI you link to is primary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Some" ?? Which is primary and I will not use. This is why we need to use article talk so we quickly identify issues.32cllou (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania! + translations project

Hi James - Maryana here :) It was such a pleasure to meet you at Wikimania! I hope you had as amazing of a time as I did in D.C., and that we'll get another chance to hang out sometime soon. Please let me know where/how I can get involved in your article translation project, and I'd be happy to inaugurate my participation in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Gotta put those esoteric language skills to use for the movement ;) Accedietalk to me 23:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Likewise. Please add yourself as a language lead to the table here. [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

French

I'll be ready tomorrow, but it's too bad that french was not a listed language on the page. I've also seen your comment on Talk:Tay–Sachs/GA1. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 02:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We will begin French as soon as we have a Wikipedian in that language to direct us. We need guidance on what articles need translation and someone to add the articles / merge the articles once translated. If you are willing to take on that role we will begin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 02:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I will try to find a person there. I can add/merge the articles when done. Familiar with their policies and such. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 02:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Enrique is an inactive user on en.wiki and fr.wiki without a global account (and no edits). What real user? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 03:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

So that you can't lose it

I'll give you a link to Daria: Daria Cybulska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rexx and she has agreed to help with Polish Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 01:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Nenpog vs. Guy Macon, Doc James, and Yobol. and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talkcontribs) 15:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

CT Cancer risk

Yes, it's well-referenced -- and it's covered in detail further down in the article. I don't see the point of leaving it in the lede when it's been challenged to that degree. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Search and replace

  • Hey Bog Where is this "search and replace" function? This is something I have been looking for.

In your "My preferences/editing" tab, make sure that you have "Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)", "Enable enhanced editing toolbar", and "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more" all enabled and that JavaScript is enabled in your web browser. When you edit a page you should see the following displayed right above the edit window:

Advanced toolbar of vector skin.png

The lower right hand side icon (paper/magnifying glass/pencil) is the "Search and replace" icon. Note this icon disappears if you press the "Cite" button but reappears if you press the "Advanced" button. Pressing the "Search and replace" icon should display a "Search and replace" pop-up window with "Search for" and "Replace with" text boxes. Boghog (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 21:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Anatomy/WP:MED

Hey James, I put clitoris under WP:MED because it contains biomedical information in this section[4]. I figure as soon as an article about a part of the body presents biomedical information, those facts (and the article itself) are presumed to be covered by WP:MEDRS and WP:MED. Biosthmors (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the link, thanks. I still think it's a no-brainer that WP:MED could be consulted for input on information in that article (unlike this example.) So I see no harm in tagging it as WP:MED. Maybe some discussion and clarification at the guideline on what to tag as WP:MED would be helpful. Biosthmors (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

RFAR request rejected

Per this, the RFAR request that you were listed as a party in was rejected and closed. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 12:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm thrilled to hear about TWB.

Please see if you can help with Talk:Gulf War syndrome#Questions when you get time. Thank you. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you be interested in helping? I could sure us more help :-) Language skills are not essential. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure. I will get the quotients of the last two columns in [5]. Is there a list of medically vital articles, or can I just use the medical subset of WP:VITAL? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I should be able to use the article statistics from the language interwikis of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences articles along with those attention-per-readership quotents to produce a sorted list of articles for review by priority. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The process is described here [6] and we are concentrating on the 80 articles here Book:Health care at least initially. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 14:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! I am going to try to get a history of all the interwiki language articles of Birth control and then use that to interpret with the article/reader ratios. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What seems most evident is that the Telugu language Wikipedia only has an article on family planning with two sub-articles. I'm not sure that is at the top of the list of pressing issues, but is it important enough to invite/alert/offer to pay Category:Translators te-en? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes we have translators in Telugu. The thing is that the page needs to be brought to at least GA before it can be submitted for translation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I'll be in touch. I have to read some papers this evening. A GA drive for Birth control sounds awesome. I've asked its WikiProjects for help, and on WP:VPM. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I've made some progress and have a plan to merge the first three sections (Methods, Effectiveness, and Adverse effects) and spin off the History section to a new WP:SUMMARY style article, based primarily on utilitarian grounds because the rest of the article is so much more likely to have what readers want. At Talk:Birth_control#Reviews_on_the_topic_in_the_Lancet_this_month I have a list of proposed additions I'd like you to please look over, and I need a little help with some source citation and abstract text problems, which I can get from WP:RX if you don't have easy answers to those. Thank you again. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Asked at WP:RX#The_Lancet_special_issue_on_birth_control. I'm having mixed feelings about spinning out the History section since it's textually not too big. But those first three sections need to be merged and expanded, along with the additions proposed at Talk:Birth_control#Reviews_on_the_topic_in_the_Lancet_this_month. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Typo or commentary?

Is it really a duel? If so, then is "ten paces" not good enough protection by itself? 70.112.178.121 (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Always feel free to correct my spelling / grammar. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 04:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sex vs gender

(from my talk page) Understood. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note discussion at WP:COIN

The activities of Sebastio Venturi are being discussed here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

License (in)compatibilities

Dengue fever article as exported to PDF via the Pdf Export extension.

Hi James,

the term open access is defined in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, which essentially states that CC BY (albeit not available at the time yet) is the most restrictive licensing scheme that would still be considered OA. By that definition, Wikimedia's CC BY-SA is not OA. PLoS have signed the BOAI and have used CC BY (or occasionally CC 0) for all the ca. 55k articles they published over the last decade, so I deem it unlikely that they would like to sprinkle that pure record with a few CC BY-SA items. PLoS are known to support experimentation in OA, though, so the chances are not nil. The case is similar with JMIR, but being smaller, it may be a bit more flexible (it basically boils down to get buy-in from Gunther Eysenbach).

The case is different for Open Medicine, who just have to drop a restriction they normally apply (i.e. the -NC clause) in order to sync with Wikipedia. Many publishers - especially the hybrid journals - have published individual articles or groups of articles under licenses that are more liberal than their default. So I think that starting out with Open Medicine is the natural way to go, though keeping sensors open in other directions certainly makes sense too. BioMed Central, for instance, uses mostly CC BY but has a few items behind paywalls, so it is conceivable that they would find a place for some CC BY-SA articles. The same goes for Springer Open, BMJ and others who offer different levels of access. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to see that Open Medicine is available for CC BY-SA. Their website states their default licenses as CC BY-NC-SA - perhaps worth changing should this no longer be the case. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Which WP article is the first in line for Open Medicine? Would like to mention it in a talk. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Dengue fever Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 13:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I took a snapshot for illustration purposes. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

I come to you by way of User:Tony the Tiger.

I am reviewing Comparison of MD and DO in the United States to become a GA (Good Article). I am have real problems justifying it. I do not have the heart to fail the GA assessment. Failure does not mean the editors are bad but there is one particular editor which I do not wish to disappoint.

There are multiple problems. A previous GA nomination failed though I had nothing to do with it.

One person mentioned that there seems to be a subtle effort to convince the reader that DO's are just as good as MD's. I don't think WP should try to do so one way or another. Another problem is that there seems to be unspoken reasons not covered by the article. For example, why are there hundreds of oculoplastic surgeons (ophthalmology sub-specialty) who are MD's but possibly only two who are DO's. Why are there 2 active burn surgeons and perhaps a third fellowship trained one that are DO's compared to certainly more than 100 MD burn surgeons?

Yet another unwritten problem is that there is diversity among MD's. Some MD's were trained in India. Are they the same as MD's trained in the United States? (I do realize that you are Canadian).

I am concerned that the selection of historical events is the most important selected but rather a semi-random selection.

I am concerned that the cultural differences (a section of the article) does not consists of 1. self characterization, 2. perceptions, and 3. self-identification. Perhaps there is a cultural difference resulting in using some kind of neck manipulation in treating diseases?

Perhaps there is a difference in research among DO medical schools compared to some MD medical schools??? This is not mentioned. I don't know if it is true, but it could be.

As far as the licensure section, I see a major flaw. DO are licensed by the state osteopathic medical board in most states while MD are licensed by the state medical board in most states.

I even found a false statement..."The requirements for maintaining a physician license for M.D. or D.O. qualified physicians are almost identical in most states, though there are small differences." I see that http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=22368 the U.S. state of Alabama requires 12 hours of continuing education per year compared to 50 hours per year in Washington state. This is not "almost identical in most states". Even within a particular state, Oklahoma requires 16 Category I hours for DO versus 60 Category I hours for MD's. 16 versus 60 in West Virginia.

Even the professional advantages section, I am not so sure it is comprehensive. Maybe there is a reason why there are so few burn surgeons or oculoplastic surgeons who are DO's (almost zero but not zero). Are there any Nobel Prize winners who are DO's? No?

Should I just be diplomatic and give the article a GA rating even though I think there are problems? Do you see any problems in the article? Auchansa (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As you mentioned I am Canadian. We do not have DO's here. I will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Some of Auchansa's statements are false and I have proven so on this user's talk page. For example, the claim that there are only 2 D.O. oculoplastic surgeons in the U.S. is false. Additionally, countries other than the U.S. use degrees equivalent to the M.D. in addition to it such as the MBBS. I also showed Auchansa some D.O. burn surgeons in the U.S. overturning the user's false claim that there are zero. Not once did this user concede that they made a mistake and did very little research. Also, Auchansa it says MOST states (not all states) and you demonstrated differences in 2 of 50. It's also possible these are recent changes. This user expresses concerns but fails to substantiate them with evidence. This user wonders why there are fewer specialists,etc and ignores the answer that DOs are far fewer in number currently than MDs in the U.S., have specialized for a shorter time, historically put added emphasis on entering into the primary care specialties, is a younger profession, etc. These differences are addressed directly in the article but are conveniently ignored. How is DOs being licensed by a state osteopathic board a major flaw? The language used by this user on the article's talk page (as well as their reliance on the comments of the talk page) makes me strongly suspect some bias on this user's part. I don't disagree that work is needed and that the nomination is moot with the proposed merger, however, Auchansa needs to exercise more objectivity in their GA reviews.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry that this user appears upset even though he denies being such. Not awarding a GA was done after careful consideration. It is inappropriate for an article to be designated as GA until it is stable and disposition certain (merge or not). Further, it is inappropriate if there are POV concerns. There is widespread belief that DO may not be equal to MDs. Whether this is old fashioned thinking or accurate is not the question. Rather, it is part of the true situation. It would be a dis-service to have an article present (as one editor suggested) where the main premise is some fact may be true BUT DOs are equal to MDs. It is possible that a good article would be mentioning the history, perception of inequality, and possible areas of equality, not to gloss over the controversy or appear to take a side.
The possible truth of the matter is that some DO schools lack the resources as some of the more well known medical schools. This probably puts graduates at a disadvantage. Or perhaps the politically correct notion would be that the best medical schools granting MD degrees are equivalent to some DO schools, some of which lack a major teaching hospital and depend on sending students to far away cities to work in clinics and smaller hospitals? Of course, clouding the picture is that there is variation in medical schools. Even within a medical school, there may be a weak department, weak for variety of reasons.
Thanks again, Doc, for your words of wisdom. Auchansa (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say DO is not the same as MD. It is less internationally recognized. It has a different history and is primarily American. Etc. Probably the best thing to do is address the reviewers concerns and re nominate once these are addressed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 02:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

NPOV tagging

Please explain what you mean by "refs are required to justify NPOV". I explained my concerns on the talk page. The tag says "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Are you asserting that it has been? —Steve Summit (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that sometimes people do not like the conclusions of the scientific literature. We are simply here to summarize the opinions of the best available literature and not our own opinions. Thus if you have issues with the lead that are supported by the literature bring this literature to the talk page for discussion. For what counts as reliable sources see WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 14:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Nowhere have I said that I disagree with, or don't like, the conclusions of the scientific literature, and if you thought I did, I don't think you read my descriptions of my concerns very carefully. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Gut (journal) as a WP:RS

Thanks for the note at my talk page, Doc Jones. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a publication in peer-reviewed Gut (journal) appears to be WP:RS enough to merit a mention in Hepatitis C. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What you have used is a primary source. Please use secondary ones Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I did quote a secondary source too, Medical News Today. And there are many more out there. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Medical news today is popular press. A major textbook or review article is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

EduWiki Conference 5-6 September in Leicester, UK

I am writing to you as you have signed up to the Education Meetup at Wikimania 2012 and perhaps are interested in how Wikipedia links to education. Wikimedia UK is now running a education related event that may be of interest to you: the EduWiki Conference on 5-6 September in Leicester. This event will be looking at Wikipedia and related charitable projects in terms of educational practice, including good faith collaboration, open review, and global participation. It's a chance to talk about innovative work in your institution or online community, and shape the future of Wikimedia UK's work in this area!

The conference will be of interest to educators, scholarly societies members, contributors to Wikipedia and other open education projects, and students.

For details please visit the UK Chapter Wiki.

Please feel welcome to register or promote within your network.

Thank you, Daria Cybulska (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Would love to but will not be able to make it unfortunately as will be in mainland Europe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation

Hi James - thank you for your welcome! I'm just getting used to how Wikipedia works as a social network :)
I thoroughly enjoyed my first assignment in the WikiProject Medicine and hope that many more will come! Great project.
All the best,
Agnes Rez (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

IRC

Are you online on IRC often? (else we could have a short chat with Sumanah there, if poss) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Already talked with Sumanah (she's *always* on irc :-P) Are you on at any time? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

newish user edits

hi,

i've edited some of the article on aspirin, and i am a little nervous simply because i have removed so much of the text in the sections i edited. i would like some feedback before i go further. there is a review article that i want to work back in somewhere else as a reference, but it seemed like there was a lot of fat to be cut. another set of eyes would be appreciated. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

First edits look good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 20:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you. But it was not just the RFA, it was a long time coming. I did start singing Yesterday when I saw that page and it took me six months and 20 articles to fix them all - but it was a one man army effort. There are thousands like that and I do not even watch that page any more. But the seeds of discontent were planted here. I challenged the exec director to so something about digital signal processing. What did she do? Nothing. I tried to join the Teahouse and the Ambassadors program to get professors involved but neither would have me - I was too arrogant I guess. I did the Rfa just because John suggested it, and as you saw I did not prepare for it - that is my way, straight up. But it made me realize I did not want some of those people as "colleagues". I was actually hoping to admin-protect some professors as they came in, along the lines of the Ambassadors program, but then we must face reality. Anyway, as for sticking with it, one has to learn to cut one's losses at some point. So there will be no 2nd Rfa for me, and no return. I am pretty single minded. I do think Wiki content will be used, but not in the current format. Wikipedia was a noble effort indeed, but it may be the first stage in a longer term effort where the content is used by others (take your pick of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft Wolfram, etc.) without relying on the wisdom of the crowds. The new Google strategy of |allowing a Right/Wrong user feedback without allowing them to edit is clever. I think something like Wikipedia, based on a question answering platform like Wolfram will prevail in the end. But I see no future in the encyclopedic development here, and I do think it will morph into a new form of "collaborative social knowledge" website that will ensure the security of WMF jobs for the next decade. History2007 (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I guess we are all free to do what we like. In any case, best wishes for your efforts, but with apologies, I do not rely on Wikiproject medicine at all. I have no idea who wrote what or if the content was changed 10 minutes before I glanced at it. I absolutely rely on geographic information, for there are plenty of people watching it, and it is not hard to monitor. I also rely on Art history for it is stable and non-critical. So let us look at this in another year. If the Digital signal processing series has really improved (note that the tag is from 2008!), then there is hope, else it is a signal that it is the beginning of the end. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I would lend my support if you ran again. But yes RfA is strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 20:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, but as I said there, there will be no return. But thanks anyway. History2007 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)