User talk:Doc James: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Publication |
||
| Line 220: | Line 220: | ||
== Your comment in my Talk should be placed in Talk in Cancer == |
== Your comment in my Talk should be placed in Talk in Cancer == |
||
Take your comments only to the subject Talk. I have started a discussion in Cancer Talk. Thank You.[[User:32cllou|32cllou]] ([[User talk:32cllou|talk]]) 23:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) |
Take your comments only to the subject Talk. I have started a discussion in Cancer Talk. Thank You.[[User:32cllou|32cllou]] ([[User talk:32cllou|talk]]) 23:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
==Publication== |
|||
I am going to be without internet (on holiday) since Friday for 2 weeks, so it may be wiser to wait until I am back. On the other hand I am not completely comfortable with the pathophisiology section, although I am not sure if I will be capable of improving it (I have not been able yet to take a look at your edits today). |
|||
--[[User:Garrondo|Garrondo]] ([[User talk:Garrondo|talk]]) 14:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:13, 15 July 2013
| Translation Main page | Those Involved (sign up) | Newsletter |
NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22
MeSH code tableHi! I was without internet the past week and just saw your message. You can ask at d:Wikidata:Bot_requests for a bot operator to generate such a table and keep it up to date. I'm not sure if we have a bot operator in the task force yet. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Please comment onWikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Change to WolbachniaOh thanks, I didn't see it there in the research section. I've added one of the refs, as it's not a printed journal. peterl (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC) CiteULikeCiteULike is about sharing sources of research information. You seem to to promoting ignorance, rather than helping provide more detailed information, or promoting your views regarding specific issues. This appears to be a recurring problem with some medical and support article editors and administrators who prefer to pursue their own and their own cultural interests dolfrog (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Bot adding MEDRS boxI noted a bot adding the previously discussed box for lists of MEDRS to the talk page of a number of medical articles on my watchlist. I noted in this thread a suggested wording, and still think it would be better to not imply that all pubmed reviews are automatically MEDRS compliant, which is what I think the new box implies. Any way we can get the wording adjusted? Yobol (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 July 2013
Anaphylaxis editsThanks for responding so quickly, and for the perspective on my intellectualizing. It's nice to know someone finds your contribution helpful, you know. JamesEG (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Talk:Schizophrenia - Support OrgsWould you mind weighing in on the recent changes and comments re: organizations on the schizo talk page? Or could you refer me to other editors who can comment? Thanks. Rmlewinson (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikilinking common termsI do not mean offence. I just need to ask you that from Schizophrenia why you have not cared to remove the wikilinks of common terms like thought or emotional but only symptoms, all of which occur in the article lead. Pardon my allegiance but I sense a gap in the logic. It is definitely not necessary to link common terms, but it does not require to be reverted either, neither does it affect the quality/presentation of the article. DiptanshuTalk 13:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. helloAbout Wernicke. It was just an accident.
Nomination of List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder for deletion The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
WernickeSome American doctors expressed satisfaction by as are the references. I do not think that the change that you propose would be useful. There pioneers like Harper remain references. But a change of approach about references seems appropriate in Medical Wikipedia: only PMID and numbers . Instantly would be achieved more information with less lines written. Cheers, Luis
Doc !!!!It is unacceptable to have removed some of the common causes of Wernicke's encephalopathy: Excessive vomiting, Prolonged parenteral nutrition, anorexia, malabsorption of nutrients, gastric syphilis, thyrotoxicosis and renal dialysis. This is well documented in the references. I would appreciate more prudence and research on what they are modifying. The article has been reviewed and accepted by other American physicians. I can only accept my limitations in handling the language and the rules of Wikipedia. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis cerni (talk • contribs) 16:16, July 9, 2013 (UTC)
Something elseI see you've edited on beriberi. They are usually multi deficiency situations as Wernicke, and should be clarified. Under the name of beriberi more classifications. I send materials to help you improve that page. Thiamine deficiency may also result in other manifestations such as dry beriberi (neuropathy), wet beri-beri (neuropathy with high-output congestive heart failure), gastrointestinal beriberi (abdominal pain, vomiting and lactic acidosis). -African (Nigerian) seasonal ataxia and gastrointestinal beriberi (Adamolekun and Ndububa 1994; Nishimune, Watanabe et al. 2000; Donnino 2004) -Dysphagia and classic symptoms. PMID 12003921* Sunuwash edits to Nasal IrrigationYou are editing a subsection that makes reference to solutions used. The entire category is conjecture because there is no "medical" solutions used. Nasal irrigation is not medicine, not medically prescribed and not administered by a doctor and is therefore not medicine. Nasal irrigation as a methodology has been studied and their are some good references in the article itself. Research has shown that antibiotics are quickly becoming ineffective in the use of sinus infections. Most doctors in ENT practice today recommend that their patients perform daily nasal irrigation which is not a medical procedure but akin to washing your hands. If you read the article and eliminate all references that are not medical and properly referenced you would edit the entire entry to a short article that wouldn't do anyone any good because they wouldn't understand what it is, how to do it and what to use. To eliminate my information with the research we have performed and the patents which we have applied for in a non-medical application is absurd. The FDA classifies nasal sinus irrigation solutions as cosmetics. Please look at the paragraph I edited below and see how you would eliminate the entire subheading following your response to my posting. You can't irrigate without having a solution. Sunuwash (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC) "While nasal irrigation can be carried out using ordinary tap water, this is not safe and additionally can be uncomfortable because it irritates the mucous membranes. Therefore an isotonic or hypertonic salt water solution is normally used, i.e. water with enough salt to match the tonicity of the body cells and blood. For the same reason, lukewarm water is preferred over cold water, which in addition to irritating nasal membranes can also exaggerate the gag reflex during irrigation. Use of distilled, sterile or previously boiled and cooled water over ordinary tap water is advised. Tap water safe for drinking is not necessarily safe for nasal irrigation due to risk of rare but fatal brain infection. A small amount of baking soda is sometimes employed as a buffering agent to adjust the pH of the irrigating solution to that of the body. NO REFERENCES WHATSOEVER. All common knowledge but no science in this Many pharmacies stock pre-manufactured sachets of pharmaceutical grade salt and baking soda designed to be used with the volume of water their corresponding device uses. Sometimes manufactured solutions such as a lactated Ringer's solution is used.[citation needed]NO CITE HERE, TRUE BUT NO RESEARCH IN THESE STATEMENTS. It is also simple to make a salt-baking soda mixture.[32] LINK TO A SITE WHICH IS NOT A VALID RESOURCE. Optional additives include xylitol which is claimed to draw water into the sinus regions and helps displace bacteria.[33] WRONG, RESEARCH IS ON LUNG TRANSPLANTS Xylitol is commonly used to prevent acute otitis media in Europe and dental caries in the United States,[34] but research into xylitol use in the sinus cavities is lacking. Another nasal irrigation additive is aloe extract, which helps to prevent nasal dryness.[citation needed] NO CITING, NO RESEARCH. Sodium citrate and citric acid help not only to balance the pH, but also to improve the sense of smell.[citation needed]" NO CITING, NO RESEARCH.
Birth controlFYI, I noticed you posted to the talk page of Cupco. That user has been permanently banned as a sock puppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dualus). He is likely still around using another account somewhere as he creates new accounts regularly to avoid the bans. Morphh (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
sunscreenyou wrote sure but the evidence supports that it (FDA) does now (support sunscreen use), removed old FDA ref. Do you have a ref please?
I'm too mean to spend the money to look at the comments on the Queensland study, but it appears to have attracted at least five which would normally be adverse (unless you know better) The best the Burnett et al paper can come up with is " (sunscreen) has not been demonstrated to adversely affect the health of humans" They don't amount to the FDA having changed its mind, or really being in a position where it will inevitably do so. The text before my edit was I felt more or less a direction to readers "use sunscreen to avoid cancer", and I added the alternative for balance. Perhaps it would go better alongside No medical association recommends not using sunblock.[citation needed]
My edit to omega 3 fatty acids being linked to prostate cancer. You indicate I should not refer to "primary" but to secondary sources. I cited an abstract published by the National Cancer Institute, as well as a press release from the study author.My edit to omega 3 fatty acids being linked to prostate cancer. You reverted it. You indicate I should not refer to "primary" but to "secondary sources". I cited an abstract published by the National Cancer Institute in their online Journal, as well as a press release from the study's author. The existing article cites to an article in JAMA for a diametrically opposed conclusion. Clearly JAMA's earlier "review" is not the whole story here. I was citing an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. How is that not a high quality source? What do you mean by the distinction between primary and secondary sources? Rather than reverting, could you simply have cleaned it up? I was not citing a news article on the subject, I was citing the primary source of the information. The abstract is one page, so there is no need for specific page references in it. What needs to be added? I took a look at the definition of secondary and primary sourcing. In this context, the study I am citing is based upon two earlier studies. Those earlier studies would be considered primary sources and the study I am citing, which relies on the earlier studies in part and then comfirms them is both a primary and a secondary source. Therefore I contend it is a reliable secondary source. Moreover, the JAMA study referred to in the earlier reverted version could easily be considered both a primary and a secondary source because it reaches its own conclusion and analyzes earlier studies. I believe that my edit is important and should not be reverted. Please respond. Thanks. PS: Should I cite something like this instead: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (2013, July 10). Link between omega-3 fatty acids and increased prostate cancer risk confirmed. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 11, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2013/07/130710183637.htm ? Moe (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Come celebrate IdeaLab’s (re)Launch!  We’ve redesigned the Grants:IdeaLab to make awesome collaborators and shiny new ideas easier to find. Come visit and create a profile, share or join an idea, and tell us what you think about the updates! Hope to see you there! Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 10 July 2013
Your comment in my Talk should be placed in Talk in CancerTake your comments only to the subject Talk. I have started a discussion in Cancer Talk. Thank You.32cllou (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) PublicationI am going to be without internet (on holiday) since Friday for 2 weeks, so it may be wiser to wait until I am back. On the other hand I am not completely comfortable with the pathophisiology section, although I am not sure if I will be capable of improving it (I have not been able yet to take a look at your edits today). --Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC) |
