User talk:Doc James

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Recent edit to Lower Spinal Stenosis

Hi James,

I received your message about the edits to the page about LSS and was confused about what the problem with the entry was. References were made to a third-party clinical journal and the entry made no claims or assertions. If you could let me know how it needs to be specifically modified, or if it needs to go in another section, I would appreciate it. I've been doing research on LSS and noticed that this treatment was missing from the article.

Here was the entry for reference:

Interventional Therapy

For patients "who fail conservative therapies and are not surgical candidates due to co-morbid conditions," recent developments in technology, most notably the Mild procedure, have lead to minimally invasive options that do not involve large incisions, the destruction of muscle tissue or prolonged recuperation.

The conclusion of this study revealed that the Mild procedure "appears to be a safe and likely effective option of neurogenic claudication in patients who have failed consecutive therapy and have ligamentum flavum hypertrophy as the primary distinguishing component of stenosis."

Thank you for your feedback!

Comment

never mind, I got it :)

Pregnancy RfC result

The closing admin has left it to you to complete the image move. I'll do it if you don't want to get involved again, since I'm already up to my neck in it. let me know. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Jmh649tangas

Hi. Are you aware of this this character? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No and thanks for the heads up. Should not get confused with me.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

• News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy

• In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts

• WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

• Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan

• Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuing education

Hi Doc James,

I don't understand why you are removing the external links. iBioSeminars/iBioMagazine are free online seminars by expert scientists in the field who research that particular topic. This is a free educational resource, is funded by the National Science Foundation and is completely open to the public (similar to Khan academy, which I have also seen cited as a continuing education resource in external links).

Where would you like me to go to petition this? I wish you had asked me to do this before reverting all of the links that have been up there for many months and have allowed people to learn more about a particular topic.

Thanks, Orangutans (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sarah I shall start the discussion here at WT:MED. If there is support I will return the links in questions. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks Doc James. I will add my opinion below your post. I am relatively new to Wikipedia (I have been involved in their Public Policy Initiative, which inspired me to contribute to science topics) so please be patient with my formatting! Best, Orangutans (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Orangutans

Sounds good. I will make sure to petition next time. My understanding is that the lectures are meant to be open access in the sense that they are freely distributable and there is no copyright or anything preventing their dissemination and use. However I do not know how they can be open source?Orangutans (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Orangutans

I understand and will inquire as to what type of license they have. Thanks for bringing this all to my attention. I'd like to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Orangutans (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Oranguatans

Hi Doc James! I was wondering what you thought about the discussion about the EL. It seems people's opinions fall somewhere in the middle. After reading the others opinions, my own opinion is that the links are appropriate on the speakers own Wikipedia pages when the material presented is related to why they have a Wikipedia page in the first place (e.g. Martin Chalfie on Martin Chalfie's page), but that some of the other links I added may not be considered useful by the Wikipedia community. There were a few links that got reverted where I updated an old link to the same site which had been on the page long before I started editing Wikipedia, and I think those should be turned back into active links. I also think that if a person is a Nobel Laureate or NAS member and gives a free talk on their area of expertise that might be considered useful and appropriate as well, but that those links should be added sparingly. What do you think? Will more people weigh in on the discussion? Should I bring this up in another science forum? Orangutans (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nuisance Editor Warning

Hi Jmh649,

I was wondering if you would be able to warn a nuisance user that they may be banned, if they continue to vandalise pages. They are an IP editor, but have been making edits since 2008. It is IP address User:77.76.106.46 and recently (7th Oct, 2011) vandalised the Alcohol intoxication page. Please have a look at a small selection of their edits and you'll see what I mean.

If you are not the best person to direct this to, please point me in the right direction.

Thanks

Kind Regards

Mitch

MitchMcM (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The user has been warned. I have the page on my watch list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Additions to acne treatment

Regarding the reverts, most of the new material presented had references equal to the quality of other material in the section. These references were sourced from other Wikipedia articles which talk about acne treatment, and cover treatments briefly mentioned in the treatment section introduction. I am still unsure as to why this material were reverted.

The few parts with lesser references, were describing the claimed active ingredients of treatments sold by pharmacies. If claims of efficacy were being made, I would understand a revert, but they are not.

Regarding the repositioning of tea tree oil, the evidence quoted for it's effectiveness appears to be as rigorously assessed as that of some of the treatments deemed to be "non-alternative". If so, why is tea tree oil categorised as "alternative"? 59.167.126.21 (talk) 05:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Much of the new content was unreferenced. Others was not supported by review articles. Tea tree oil even though supported by review articles is regarded as "alternative medicine" thus that is how it is labeled. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I admit to not having previously attempted to improve medical articles. I can accept that a higher level of accuracy may be believed to be required of them than articles of other natures. But I'm afraid I don't understand why material deemed to be acceptable in articles about specific treatments is deemed to be unacceptable in an article about the condition being treated. I am also curious to know which global medical board determines which non-prescription preparations are "alternative" and which are not.59.167.126.21 (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Pharmaceuticals are a single compound typically ( or a couple ) alt med products contain many thousands/millions. Pharmaceuticals are regulated in many countries alt med products are not. You could ask for further clarification at WT:MED if you wish. Being a pharmaceutical has the benefit of the countries health board (health canada/FDA giving official approval to certain uses). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry, James, I didn't know that I couldn't do that. I'll desist immediately. I plan to respond to the last round of posts at WP:Med in a day or two and concede that I lost the case on indiscriminate ELs to MedMerits. At this point I was just trying to make others interested in medicine of MedMerits as a new resource. Maybe there is a better way to do that. Presto54 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

References

No, I'm not going to "hide" refs. If consecutive sentences or passages in the same paragraph are supported by the same ref, one citation of it at the end is enough. A ref for each sentence is overkill. Nightscream (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What problems? Nightscream (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

People come along and tag the sentence. Or sentences get moved around. Then we at WP:MED have trouble verifying which ref supports the text. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Heading

WP:MEDRS clearly states that reliable primary sources can be used with care,"Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge."

Please stop removing my edits. The claim, "Only one independent study has shown that Escitalopram is more effective than citalopram, but in October 2011 it was reported that the company that sponsored the study had links to Lundbeck, the makers", is clearly false because of the existence of the article on PubMed.

Also, my FDA/Orange Book information are clearly statements from a "nationally or internationally recognised expert body".

Rhproofer (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

• News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised

• In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist

• WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

• Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

• Arbitration report: Senkaku Islands closes; administrators authorized to place articles on discretionary sanctions

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment and HTTPS switchover completed, but developer help now needed with new projects

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For assuming immediately good faith when I reverted your edits by accident. Thank you and happy editing! pluma Ø 03:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Heading

You have decided to cite a primary source yourself, but refuse to allow my primary source. This is hypocritical, and acting in bad faith. You state in part, "which also raised concerns regarding sponsorship bias of the trials", and you seem overly concerned with pointing out sponsorship bias. I am not addressing the issue of sponsorship bias.

This is an article about Escitalopram, not "Sponsorship Bias of Trials of Escitalopram". I recommend that you start a new article about the ethical issues of the drug industry or the particular companies related to escitalopram that bother you to satisfy yourself.

I am reverting the article one more time. If you revert it again, I will start a dispute.

Rhproofer (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This Cochrane review is a Review article Cipriani, A (2009 Apr 15). Cipriani, Andrea (ed.). "Escitalopram versus other antidepressant agents for depression". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (2): CD006532. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006532.pub2. PMID 19370639. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pericardial effusion CAT images

Hello, I was wondering if I did something wrong or you kept deleting my link. I just found out that it was you. I am sorry but I don't get what I do wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.58.109.59 (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 93.58.109.59 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes as stated on your talk page we do not link to many external sites especially when this content could be added here. If you own the copyright to these images please upload them to commons and then they can be added. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you thing that's possible for every subject? I mean just for pericardial effusion I have 2 cases, 16 images each... 93.58.109.59 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Dimitris

Video production

What are you views about the production of a series of video modules on human biology/anatomy (pitched at High School level) that could be hosted at Commons, to accompany other Wikimedia Content?

At the very least it would be useful to know which major systems should be presented in a series of that type :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes should good. Maybe also over at Wikiversity? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity has some 'issues' at present, but yes :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Gastric antral vascular ectasia

Hi doc, can you please look at this article and fix any obvious errors? I'd like to get it to GA status. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Will take a look... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My contribution to asthma deleted

I thought I did a pretty thorough job of adding Halotherapy to the Complementary Medicine section of Asthma. Anything specific that was not right? Was all my work totally deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyura (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to use review articles Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoosexuality

What about this as a sexual orientation? You want to support its inclusion at the Sexual orientation article? Homosexuals and zoosexuals, in the same boat. You can come in and comment on the talk page. 120.203.215.11 (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)