User talk:Doc James: Difference between revisions
Line 275: | Line 275: | ||
If you don't have access to the article, I can email to you. Please indicate how they arrived at the 70% figure. If you can't based on that article, it's a bad reference. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.216.227.218|132.216.227.218]] ([[User talk:132.216.227.218|talk]]) 14:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
If you don't have access to the article, I can email to you. Please indicate how they arrived at the 70% figure. If you can't based on that article, it's a bad reference. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.216.227.218|132.216.227.218]] ([[User talk:132.216.227.218|talk]]) 14:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:Yes I have access to the full article. Just have not read the whole thing yet. Feel free to bring this discussion to [[WT:MED]] for further input. Even if it is in just the abstract it is still a reliable published source. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC) |
:Yes I have access to the full article. Just have not read the whole thing yet. Feel free to bring this discussion to [[WT:MED]] for further input. Even if it is in just the abstract it is still a reliable published source. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
I am writing a manuscript and would like to reference the 70% number. Referencing "Efficacy of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines" will not be accepted by the journal editors where I am submitting. I thought that the authors of this paper would reference the study that showed that 70% was the right number. They don't. I'm not disputing the number, by the way, I'm simply saying that we need a link to the original study (which is probably much more nuanced than just ~70%).[[Special:Contributions/132.216.227.218|132.216.227.218]] ([[User talk:132.216.227.218|talk]]) 14:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:21, 5 January 2013
Translation Main page | Those Involved (sign up) | Newsletter |
section ordering in colorectal cancerThe guideline says " The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition".
Also I agree with RHaworth above who says "If you write on my page, I will reply there. Discussion threads, however short that ping-pong between two pages are an utter pain to read." - Rod57 (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
your reversion of 'See Also" list on Circumcision articleWhen you say "We do not like See Also lists" - in reverting my edit is it a royal We or can you steer me to a WP policy page that says this." See also" lists abound in other articles I am curious Tumadoireacht
Birth Control ReligionDear Doc James, You wrote, "A number of refs you have added are not reliable including http://www.catholic.org/prwire/ and youtube." yet you did not just delete sentences referencing those sources, instead you deleted the whole post. Could you explain why you deleted comments from the Pope please. I also noted that the second half of the second sentence has no citation, but you did not delete that. Is there a reason why you deleted the citation needed (which by the way I did not post) but deleted everything I wrote? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbumDomini (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Birth ControlHow is a textbook or one author's encylclopedia on women a source for Catholic religious views. Again, I submit to you that Catholicism is not a democracy. It's views are not shaped by what so-called members do, nor is Catholic doctrine defined by people who write textbooks. This does not accurately represent Catholic religious views, it represents the behavior of members who are rebelling against Catholic religious views. Does this distinction make sense to you? Under no other religion is such a comment made. Is there a reason for this to be added to Catholics only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbumDomini (talk • contribs) 03:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback![]() Message added 04:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Nouniquenames 04:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Editing LymphomaIt was really appreciable that you have participated in editing Lymphoma. Currently the article is in a better shape. I have made a few further edits and it seems that a lot more cleanup is required. I edit Wikipedia less frequently compared to you, so I would be glad if you could leave me some suggestions.DiptanshuTalk 09:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Invitation to edit Homing (hematopoietic)Shortly back, I have created an article called Homing (hematopoietic). I would be glad if you participate in editing the article.DiptanshuTalk 10:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 24Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carpal tunnel syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B6 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Behçet's diseaseAn IP just changed the ICD-9 code for Behçet's disease with this edit summary; Changed outdated ICD-9 code. No research exists to indicate Behcet's is caused by any known infection and currently remains medically unclassified. These codes were written decades ago in the US.. ~JB The previous version's code is for Behçet's disease, but the version's code just states Autoimmune disease, not elsewhere classified This seems odd. Would you please verify this? edit diff Much appreciated. Jim1138 (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Xmas
The Signpost: 24 December 2012
Refs on PolioPer WP:MEDRS secondary sources from the last 5 years are needed. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
PingTalk:Fecal incontinence/GA1. I don't think lesion knew that "pinging" was slang for contact me on my talk page. They replied there that they were ready. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Got your message.Hello. Just a note to let you know that I received your message and will make sure that I pay attention to that. Thank you for pointing that out to me; I'm still learning my way around here.(GlassLadyBug (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC))
Deletion of 12/28/12 revisionWhy was the revision on 12/28/12 by Fereydoon.Roohi@Downstate.edu deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFRoo (talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Saw this user pop up on my watchlist on the Asthma page, not sure what to make of it, but wanted to make sure you knew about it. Yobol (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Banner for WikiProject Medicine Page.![]() WikiProject Medicine banner is added to Project Page, feel free to update it or remove it. Please explain your reversionHi, You reverted my changes to colorectal cancer saying 'references required'. Are you asking for references in this article (maybe because you doubted my additions were true) or because they weren't easy to find in the linked articles ? Also, I'd be grateful, if you revert my changes, if you'd mention it on my talk page please so I can deal with it while it's fresh in my mind. - Rod57 (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC) WarningsGiven my apology to Drmies and the conversation you chose to post at the end of, what productive perspective do you feel you're adding? Ironholds (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Just saw this, Doc ... I was encouraged that at least Ironholds issued what looked like a genuine apology, while the other admin in the other block did not, and likely will not. So at this juncture, I'm inclined towards feeling better about Ironholds than the other, but yes ... efforts to help clarify blocking policy so that trigger-happy admins don't go around making unhelpful blocks would be a good thing. I don't have the time or inclination to take on that issue while the disruption at FAC continues ... I'd like to be able to just get back to reviewing articles at FAC and FAR, since the standards have dropped, and work on medical articles without Education Program interference. I appreciate your efforts to help clarify blocking policy, and I'm sorry I don't have the energy to join in that effort right now. I hope Drmies and all of the unfairly blocked will be able to put it behind them and welcome in a New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Hi DocI just wanted to say that I hope that you had a nice Christmas and that you have a Happy New Year. :-)--MrADHD | T@1k? 14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Doc9871 & ChemgirlHi, not sure what to think of [1] - you probably know a lot more than me. Richiez (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
That was my initial thought as well, but in thinking more about this I changed my mind. Since old versions of Wikipedia pages are not normally indexed by search engines, it would make it much more difficult to find someone if the pages were expunged. Boghog (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I've reported this at WP:ANI.[7] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC) My edits...Yes I thought when I was writing the references for the heart disease pages, that I should have referenced the actual studies they reference with their proof directly, rather than the secondary source talking about the studies. Would it be worth going back and creating direct links to the studies related to the cause of heart disease, that this article referenced, at some later time? (Are fairly cut and dry studies acceptable references?) Just hit me on a whim, to try and correct some of our long held seeming misperceptions about the topic having discovered this research (such as that heart disease is caused by excessive LDL, when its more accurately caused by high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome etc and a lack of certain anti-oxidants ie oxLDL, or so it now appears). The risk factors still apply, but they are no longer viable as the actual cause (apart from perhaps high blood pressure, which is part of the cause) Admitedly more research needs to be done now that we have a new angle to look at this phenomena from, to give it more weight (especially with long held perceptions) (The nicotine thing is something I became aware of recently, that nicotine on its own, say via an e-cig, is not anywhere near as addictive as smoking - its the mao inhibition that makes smoking tobacco work like it does - another misperception, and thankfully someone had already referenced that one with a study) I appreciate you dropping me a note :) Thanks, Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.215.200 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23![]() You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 31 December 2012
Talkback![]() Message added 10:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Emphysema article - research editsWhere would you recommend I place research done on blood oxygenation without respiration? An an emphysema patient, it seems to apply to progress toward a cure (or workaround in this case). I can't imagine where else on Wikipedia I would look this up, if I were searching for info on progress made by the research community. 174.239.32.140 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI - re your suggestionAs someone who has been blocked in the not to distant past I wanted to tell you that I do not know how to respond to your proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Alteration_to_the_block_policy Here is a reference to how I was blocked: User_talk:Ottawahitech#Username_sounds_like_an_organization In your opinion was I notified in advance of the block or not? - (I was in shock when it happened, so maybe I am naive?) Ottawahitech (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
RfC: Warning before blockingShouldn't you have confined your proposal to established or long term content editors? It is not going to succeed in its current form. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
ClarificationRegarding your image upload of psoriasis, do you recall what part of the body the image recorded? (i'm guessing it's the knee..), Thank-You--Anuhek (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Medical referencesGreetings - You left a message on my talk page, and I'm hoping you can enlighten me. It's a large reference, and I can feel that you're concerned about something in particular. Can you enlighten me? Perhaps I can help or fix something. Santamoly (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) 70% figureDo you have access to the full article "Efficacy of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines"? I just read the entire article and could not find a single justification for the 70% figure. Perhaps there is a justification somewhere, I could not find it on Google Scholar. They should not have been allowed to state such a figure in the abstract without repeating it in the introduction and giving a proper reference to studies which justify it. It is a bad reference, and is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.227.218 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
If you don't have access to the article, I can email to you. Please indicate how they arrived at the 70% figure. If you can't based on that article, it's a bad reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.227.218 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I am writing a manuscript and would like to reference the 70% number. Referencing "Efficacy of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines" will not be accepted by the journal editors where I am submitting. I thought that the authors of this paper would reference the study that showed that 70% was the right number. They don't. I'm not disputing the number, by the way, I'm simply saying that we need a link to the original study (which is probably much more nuanced than just ~70%).132.216.227.218 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) |