:::Does it say that in the hidden part of the paper, because it doesn't in the publicly accessible part. (It would be nice if there was a citation that everyone could review.) [[User:Foobard|Foobard]] ([[User talk:Foobard|talk]]) 04:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Does it say that in the hidden part of the paper, because it doesn't in the publicly accessible part. (It would be nice if there was a citation that everyone could review.) [[User:Foobard|Foobard]] ([[User talk:Foobard|talk]]) 04:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Most parts of papers are hidden. [[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) 04:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Most parts of papers are hidden. [[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) 04:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::The most complete excerpt that is publicly available says "In the United States, the prevalence of HSV1 increases consistently with age, from 26.3% in 6- to 7-year-old children and 36.1% in 12- to 13-year-old children to 90% among those older than 70 years." Using the 90% number without qualification would not be accurate. If you're referring to something in the censored part of the article, I apologize, but that is the trouble with referencing closed access journals. Also, it seems that the paper in question is citing the numbers from other papers, so it would be better to cite those directly in any event.
Peer review article have a higher impact factor and higher level of evidence than review articles( level IV) .
Peer review article have a higher impact factor and higher level of evidence than review articles( level IV) .
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Medical uses of silver.
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Hi. You might remember I posted on Ryanspir's talk page about the other editors leaving us to it for a bit. That ... basically hasn't happened, and you're the only one not actively participating. I'm not saying you have to come back, if you'd rather stay out of it that's fne, but if my comment was the only reason you're staying away, then please come back and give some input. (I think we're making a little progress - baby steps.) CarrieVS (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes everything but the rhythm puzzles. Many thanks for taking this on :-) Wow 15 Gbs. Other organizations really do love collaborating with Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case you missed above message....just a friendly reminder. I need a response. If its fine, I can begin upload. I can't clean them up much more.Smallman12q (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suicide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caucasian (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.
Nevertheless your edits reduced rather than added to the utility of the article hypertension. Editing guidelines that have that effect are questionable. The "Well" blog on the The New York Times is an excellent source, and the book by Mann is appropriate further reading. User:Fred BauderTalk17:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would disagree. Even the review you use is a little old. We have some excellent recent guidelines on the management of hypertension. We should be using those more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are some excellent recent guidelines on the management of hypertension why did the article before I edited it lack the basic information I added? Do the guidelines you suggest contain this information? What is the reason for low quality? User:Fred BauderTalk13:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also what is it you disagree with and why? For example, can you give a good reason why Mann's book is not appropriate further reading. Why is a blog by medical writer which cites a review not an appropriate source? By the way, making trouble over New York Times articles disrupts my editing routine which nearly always begins with a NYT's article of some sort. BTW I signed up for the Tripdatabase and found some useful material. User:Fred BauderTalk14:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not use any blogs as references as they are just not reliable enough. And why would we link to that book? I am not sure what it has going for it. I have seen many errors in the popular press and all these need to be replaced by better quality sources. Often the popular press is just a copy and pasted version of Wikipedia :-) Jacob updated the reference you provided further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Doc. Consensus was reached to remove the disputed text "Silver preps deliver inactive metallic silver ions". I hope you will read the discussion in Talk (Section : Silver colloids, ions, ingestion and antibacterial properties) particulary Desotos's final para that provides greater detail about the reference. Cheers. Blakebeau (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know how to link to a Talk section. I'll try and find out, but in the meantime here's Desoto's comment about the reference...
"I have now read the article in full ("So what if you are Blue"). The article is, indeed, about wound dressings, but in the introduction the authors make the quote about CS that we have in the article. They do not reference the statement, and there is no information in the article to back it up. In addition, the article is really a case report and is labeled as such by the journal. My opinion is that this is a very very weak source, the quotation is in the Introduction section, the article is a primary source (Case Study), and the first author is a medical student (not that there is anything wrong with that) and the citation lists only 18 sources. Given these reservations, I suggest that we delete the quote and reference.Desoto10 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Blakebeau (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
James, thank you for the advice on identifying reliable sources, specifically for medical pages. I understand why these references require additional scrutiny, thanks for your guidance OscarK878 (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think if I would say about that to you few years ago and provide some 10 articles from PUBmed you wouldn't accept it, and you would say that microbiome and anything which uses this principle for a cure is a quackery. But we are not in the time of rapid change. I bet they didn't teach in the medical school about Microiome, especially in the way it's introduced in the above mentioned links.
I'm not directly connecting it to colloidal silver (silver nanoparticles) of course. But I just want to say, that some respectable scientists had written that it's "a new vector in antimicrobials". Please let me know if you would like pubmed links to the articles saying that.
About Silver nanoparticles and Colloidal silver there is actually a very slight difference, I'll post about it on the talk page. However in short, the difference is as much as ciprofloxacin and CIPROFLOXACIN HYDROCHLORIDE. Which is practically the same. Using scientific language we may use the second term, while in common practice we would use the first term. Colloidal silver is silver nanoparticles in a water. Water is obviously inactive. Sometimes they use more scientific term "agnp". Example is this link: http://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB72129214.htm. And this www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22958173. Ryanspir (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contacting me on this. Although I handle quite a bit of translation, medicine is not my field. Sorry. Good luck with your project. --Ipigott (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
due to the fact "genital warts" is uneditable, I edited "cervical cancer" to make a very important point and raise some awareness to people who would do some research on cervical cancer online.
you deleted my edit, why?
Thank you for deleting my post and now people don't know that even if you have all the physical protection in sexual acts, you would still catch genital warts and herpes.
Hello Jmh649, Eduemoni has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey Jmh, do you by chance have access to this article? I asked OhanaUnited but I haven't heard back (granted, it hasn't been long but the sooner the better). Drug-induced gynecomastia: an evidence-based review. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22862307 Expert Opinion on Drug Safety 11(5) 779-795 doi: 10.1517/14740338.2012.712109
Hey Doc, if you have access to this paper, can you send me a copy? I want to see if it has information to verify something in the gynecomastia article to which I've been adding sources. Thanks, here's the paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22732638 Large-cell calcifying Sertoli cell tumors of the testes in pediatrics. Current opinion in pediatrics 24(4): 518-522 doi: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e328355a279 TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime in your edits of January 28th to cataract, your last sentence in 'Medications' became disconnected. Do you think you could have a look at it sometime? I would edit it but I'm not completely sure of your intention. Regards. --Mdscottis (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am setting up a wiki based documentation for my metatextbook of medicine and my medline&more ultrasearchengine. I am in lag of tagging about 10k items and all 2012+ items.
Thematical linkouts would be appreciated - to my preformatted review collections and/or my pre-formatted pubmed search term expressions as exemplified in that documentation at 04 feb 2013. And as a source of selected papers, of course, too :))))
Yours sincerely - Ossip Groth
Indeed, there is a major problem in medicine which I can understand as a german and which is of utmost importance to my collegues from romania, bulgaria and so on - they dont understand english, so they are not able to formulate pubmed search terms. I recently wanted a paper from a chinese server - i couldnt even registrate to use it.
Hey James, I took a look but I'm frankly not sure how this integrates with Wikipedia, WPMED or WPMEDF. Maybe Ossip can clarify, because I'm not clear on the purpose our how we would help. Cheers, Ocaasit | c19:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that it's very much a work in progress, but the goal seems to be a metasearch tool for publications on medical subjects. It doesn't yet seem to have hooks to use INNs, ICD codes, MeSH, or similar headings, which would seem to be an obvious way to reduce language dependencies. The English-language introduction page could clearly benefit from some copyedits, but he's got some good ideas that will be helpful in identifying accessible high-quality reference materials. Perhaps he could get some help from the Translators Without Borders? I'm sure Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange and its other-language equivalents could be of some assistance in assessing and commenting on the tools. LeadSongDogcome howl!20:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I Jmh649, i got a question on your way of moving content. First of all, here's few exemple of what i'm talking about (by edits id:
-403331487
-403332145
-403332304
For those cases, it's in the comment that those actions consist in moving content to subpage. But after some research, i'm totally unable to see where it can have been put. I understand those are hold post (but i've seen this append else where too). So i was wandering if it is a simple bad habit naming your comment, or if those are simply misleading of what is truly appening (like a simple deletion of content). So please, explain yourself (or just be more specific in your comment). I making quite some researchs on that kind of edits, so a little explanation of your proceeding will be welcome. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCMoineau (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You always can use de diff app, changing only the unique id. Here's a example with my first link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaria&diff=prev&oldid=403331487 (Note that the title of the article doesn't have to be legit, only the edit ID will be considered). This example is a good one, because your modification invoke 4 differents places where you should have put the removed content. Yet, there's no trace in any of them.
Unsure what the issue is? Some content was moved to subpage (which it was probably already on so simply removed) and the other section was simply moved from once place to another. All done a long time ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously old stuff here that i'm talking about. I'm doing research on content who's moving around articles in Wiki, which is quite specific. If i came to you yesterday, it's because it's have been already few times that i cross some of yours contributions (high quality work most of the time btw, so good job). But i've found myself having real difficult time understanding what's going on when you contributing by moving content around, suppressing that same content on the original page. Might be a way for simply suppressing stuff without much debate. In that case, it will be very misleading and bad habit. If i came to you, it's because in at least 5 cases (may seem little, but for that kind of contribution, it have great effect on the target page).For those case, i was simply enabled to verify your affirmation. I suppose that my intervention can conclude only by asking you to maybe be more careful on how you tag your contribution. Outside of this, continue your good contributions. MCMoineau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.179.9 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely arguing that it is intrinsic to double blind studies that when the experimental and placebo group show similar degrees of benefit that the benefit in the experimental group can be attributed to the placebo effect. This concept is so basic to double blind studies that I do not believe that a reference is required. Part of the very reason for the existence of blinded studies explain the nature of the results of unblinded studies.CrunchyChewy (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cancer biomarkers and ovarian cancer and site site [1]
Sorry, I do not understand why you have removed all my edits to the "cancer biomarkers", the "ovarian cancer" and the "gene expression profiling" pages.
We have developed a freely available online software which was already used in top journals like Nature, Cancer Cell, PNAS, etc. We have 1500 users per day. Since it is designed to validate cancer biomarkers, I believe this is a useful info for wikipedia visitors as well. Zsalab2 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for referring me to WP:IMAGE. I enlarged the image of the eye and put some text in bold on 'Cataract' to assist users with poor vision. I see that size up to 400 are considered reasonable in some circumstances. Would this not be an example of where this is appropriate ? Aspheric (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If one sets image size to default than readers with poor vision can set the size they wish to see to whatever they like under "preferences". If people have poor internet connections they may wish to see smaller images. If people have poor eyesight they may wish to see larger images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Text moved from my user page
I removed that sentence because, as best as I could tell over the paywall, it was not supported by the reference. I say no reference to a 90% rate in the entire population (just those 70+), and even if it were, the wording suggests a much higher incidence than there actually is.
Does it say that in the hidden part of the paper, because it doesn't in the publicly accessible part. (It would be nice if there was a citation that everyone could review.) Foobard (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most complete excerpt that is publicly available says "In the United States, the prevalence of HSV1 increases consistently with age, from 26.3% in 6- to 7-year-old children and 36.1% in 12- to 13-year-old children to 90% among those older than 70 years." Using the 90% number without qualification would not be accurate. If you're referring to something in the censored part of the article, I apologize, but that is the trouble with referencing closed access journals. Also, it seems that the paper in question is citing the numbers from other papers, so it would be better to cite those directly in any event.
Peer review article have a higher impact factor and higher level of evidence than review articles( level IV) .
But Im sure you know this and your response was an error . I was wondering why are the Level 1 and level 2 reference article I keep on leaving for this page gets deleted and reverted back to none peer reviewed commercial website and statements with no reference .
No systematic reviews are level one and RCTs are level 2. And impact factor is of the journal not the article itself? Please read WP:MEDRS. Which systematic review was removed from where by whom? Please provide me a dif. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)
Flail Mandible
Hi James,
I made an entry for "flail mandible." (It had not existed previously.) It was brief--one sentence each for definition, cause, and treatment and included one journal article as a reference. It looks like it was taken down already. Is there a good way for me to learn what wasn't up to par about it? Also, is there any kind of mentoring system when learning the ropes of Wiki? I want to contribute, but do not have oodles of time to figure out "how" to do everything....
I got your message and agree wholeheartedly. I will gladly remove the reference to the web site news article. I only ask that the reference to the Journal of Invertebrate Pathology be allowed to stand. What is the basis of your continued objection to this? KDS444 (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:MEDRS: "[E]dits 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." That is all this paragraph did.KDS444 (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of it says "When citing primary sources, particular care must be taken to adhere to Wikipedia's undue weight policy. Secondary sources should be used to determine due weight." Is there a secondary source that mentioned this? My edit was to give it due weight. If you use secondary sources things are easier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are giving it due weight by removing it-- that is not exactly giving it due weight. You are quibbling over a relevant citation to a relevant piece of research that was included well under Wikipedia's guidelines for them. This starts to feel like an edit war. KDS444 (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DocJames. I've seen your signature around here and there, but never knew what your position was on COI.
I was curious if you support COI work like this. RTI International is a good example to use, since they have published a lot of notable research on cancer and AIDs, so I thought you might be familiar with them. Their previous article looked like this. I think they are an honorable organization, not an evil corporation, and a lot of their research is in itself a reliable source. But they did need help being neutral, understanding Wikipedia's rules and explaining why we would want to include the gun-shooting in Iraq, though it's not something they would prefer.
I'm interested in the debate in general. Do you think my helping them in this capacity was a bad thing for Wikipedia? In this case I was assisted very promptly and so my poking for your opinion is not connected to the timeliness issue discussed on Jimbo's Talk page. Just looking for ways to improve and gain fresh perspective. I don't think the article is perfect and the GA review may offer further criticisms, but hopefully my contributions are at least up to the standards we would set for most editors.
I have less of a concern about people writing about themselves or their companies than writing about their products. My opinion is that it is nearly impossible for corporations to write neutrally about the stuff they sell. Maybe it is just that I care little about articles about people and companies and more about products.
I could tell some stories but doing so is a indefinite block-able offense. And this is really the bigger issue Wikipedia faces. Wikipedians are not allowed to talk about cases of COI. Wikipedians are not allowed to defend themselves from systemic attacks by people with COI. That when companies edit nefariously to systematically bias the coverage of themselves and what they sell we fight an uphill battle to address it. I see this as one of Wikipedia's greatest failings. :P.S. only really edit medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I see it being most difficult for them to add contentious material, cover controversies where they have a vested interest and writing neutral Reception sections, but I would see products as being the biggest target for spam. It is also hard even on a volunteer basis to avoid promo on product articles. This is a pretty strong attempt, but I still feel it will need a second pair of eyes before it's ready. OTOH, we added content from an analyst report, which no volunteer would ever have access to, even though it reflects somewhat poorly on them. If that's not a sign of good-faith, I don't know what it is :-D This is also a product article, where we substantially reduced promotionalism. Why? Well we just want a good article, that's all...
Probably why we've never bumped into each other. You won't see me on medicine articles. Well, if you do ever find my COI behavior objectionable, I'm always trying to improve. Cheers CorporateM (Talk) 01:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
April - National Contribution Month
Hello James,
I know you know, but I sent you the template anyway. Everyone on the WMCA participant list receives this :
Good day Jmh649,
During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.
Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.
If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.
Right, I understand that. When I was working on the page and got it peer-reviewed, I was guided by Zad68 and a few other editors to abide the MOS of diseases and to have the article broken up into sections such as epidemiology, history, signs and symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, etc. I saw what you said on the talk page and it seems like your questions, which I think are justified, point more to why have an article about "bronchitis" when there is already a wikipedia page for acute bronchitis and one for chronic bronchitis. Were the people instructing me on peer review just wrong or do we need to open this to a bigger forum to discuss whether the bronchitis page should even be there? The changes you made today were dramatic ones and very different from what I was instructed to do on peer-review which is why it raised concerns.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let discuss further on the talk page. IMO bronchitis should really be a disambig. It is not one disease but two very different diseases. Each of these two diseases should get a brief overview with a link to the main article. Otherwise we end up with cotracts. Do you think that sounds fair? I would view this as an exception to the rule.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chiropractic
That's a rather heavy handed approach James. Please discuss this with me at the chiropractic talk forum. Discuss the language you would like to see used. Disagreements in viewpoint amongst research is common but accusations of misrepresentation of sources is not assuming good faith, IMO. Anyways, I look forward to discuss it further with you in the appropriate forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVMt (talk • contribs) 01:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A heavy handed approach would have been reverting back to the last neutral version. I have no idea who wrote the section in question thus was not assuming anything of anyone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the whole goal here is to get it NPOV and you can look at all the sources, raise any issues on the talk page and we can discuss it. There is scientific consensus (not unanimity) regarding manual therapy including SMT and back, neck pain. Regards, DVMt (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
^Voss, JD (2013). "Association of Elevation, Urbanization and Ambient Temperature with Obesity Prevalence in the United States". International Journal of Obesity. doi:10.1038/ijo.2013.5. PMID23357956. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
