The reason we formed the group is to provide a bridge to the entities to ETHICALLY fix legitimate errors on healthcare pages. As you know hospitals and companies do not get involved in providing the wealth of information they have about some major topics, notably pharmaceutical products, fearing backlash. Some are paying unknown agencies to promote marketing material, which is not good for the Wikipedia community. Will be glad to work with you and other docs in the community. Hope to meet you soon in person soon at a conference. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:WikiCorrect-Health|WikiCorrect-Health]] ([[User talk:WikiCorrect-Health|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WikiCorrect-Health|contribs]]) 12:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> --[[User:WikiCorrect-Health|WikiCorrect-Health]] ([[User talk:WikiCorrect-Health|talk]]) 12:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The reason we formed the group is to provide a bridge to the entities to ETHICALLY fix legitimate errors on healthcare pages. As you know hospitals and companies do not get involved in providing the wealth of information they have about some major topics, notably pharmaceutical products, fearing backlash. Some are paying unknown agencies to promote marketing material, which is not good for the Wikipedia community. Will be glad to work with you and other docs in the community. Hope to meet you soon in person soon at a conference. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:WikiCorrect-Health|WikiCorrect-Health]] ([[User talk:WikiCorrect-Health|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WikiCorrect-Health|contribs]]) 12:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> --[[User:WikiCorrect-Health|WikiCorrect-Health]] ([[User talk:WikiCorrect-Health|talk]]) 12:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::Hum. How many of you are using this account? [[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) 12:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::Hum. How many of you are using this account? [[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) 12:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
We are a team of 5 at this point. If you think we should use individual accounts, please let us know. Again we are not planning on editing pages unless something very important pops up.
We are a team of 5 at this point. If you think we should use individual accounts, please let us know. Again we are not planning on editing pages unless something very important pops up.--[[User:WikiCorrect-Health|WikiCorrect-Health]] ([[User talk:WikiCorrect-Health|talk]]) 12:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
Thanks for that msg James. Somewhat depressing to think that my level of wiki activity earns me this place, because I don't feel I work very hard at all. Perhaps I was working more consistently at the beginning of 2013. We really do need more editors... Anyway, I have made a resolution to try out the collaboration with journals thing and if it works out to stop publishing off-wiki. I much prefer writing Wikipedia, because of the sense of collaboration. The delay is due to several half finished papers in the pipe line ... 2 at peer review and the rest in various stages of completion. I am not starting any more, so eventually I will be focusing more on wiki, and focusing on producing a few very high quality articles rather than haphazard editing. Ian and I have toothache at GA currently, but still would need a fair bit of work before being fit for a journal. Maybe aphthous stomatitis is more ready for that. Lesion (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for passing the barnstar to me too. I too feel surprised that the level of work that I have put in is not much and yet I get into the top 10. Can you tell me where to find the list? Do you have any suggestions based on which we could motivate more users in contribution to medical articles? DiptanshuTalk10:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have not published the list yet. I guess I could soon :-) There was 112 people in English who made more than 250 edits to a medical article in 2013 and 160 people in other languages.
How to motivate more people to seriously contribute to medical content? That is a great question. We have done a bunch of things with limited success. The greatest success I have had was bringing all these translators on board with respect to [1]. Convincing them to directly edit Wikipedia has only been successful with a few people though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you incorporate this link some place in WP:MED as this list of 114 users may prove useful for many seeking assistance in this field. DiptanshuTalk11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suitably add {{user}} before name of each of the users on that page so that it renders as Jmh649 (talk·contribs) and makes it further useful. Could not think of a simple method to do it and I myself did not take up the task since I did not wish to do it manually. DiptanshuTalk11:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DocJames, I wanted to know because, in May 2013 (last year), the DSM-IV revised to its current manual DSM 5 and has consolidated Asperger's, PDD-NOS, and Autism into one label: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Do you think it's worth mentioning in the lead? Also the hatnote on top uses the word "pervasive developmental disorders" but it is no longer recognized as the diagnostic term for ASD. I think it needs to be revised. See here: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Autism%20Spectrum%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdfATC.Talk04:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct and yes, I brought this to SandyGeorgia's attention. She or he has not responded. If the user doesn't reply do you know anyone else that I could connect with? ATC.Talk00:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jmh, if you're interested, I'd like to work with you to try and get Crohn's to FA after Jfdwolff finishes the GA review of psoriasis. I imagine it's probably fairly close to achieving that FA status. Let me know if you're interested. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a good solid updating. Am willing to help but my primary effort is going into just improving leads of articles for translation into other languages as possible per here [2]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I can see the logic behind using review articles. And I can see the sense in avoiding primary sources. However, there remains a problem. A clinical trial (which, by the way, was found using TRIP database) is evidence. Therefore, to continue saying "There is no evidence..." in the face of said evidence, becomes a bald faced lie. May I suggest we simply remove the words "hempseed oil" from this section since there really is evidence. Even if we don't like the form of the evidence or what it says. After a life long experiment with the treatment of dermatitis I can tell you that hempseed oil is the only natural medicine which has made any significant impact on my symptoms of my particular strain of dermatitis. That anecdotal evidence can never be used as the basis for medical advice to the public, but I can not ignore it, and I can not sit idly by while someone tries to tell me "There is no evidence..." --Livepsycle (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message and congratulation. I'm surprised to know that I've made the highest edits to medical content on Arabic Wikipedia! because the number of my edits as well as my activity level aren't that high! I guess it reflects the need for more work on Arabic Wikipedia. Definitely, I'm interested to help as much as I can. I had quick look at links you provided, not sure exactly what I'm suppose to do but well look at it again and well message you if I've questions.--Ffraih (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great to have you join us :-) Instructions on how to add articles are here [3] Feel free to email me and I can put you into contact with the translating team. Also if you see articles that are already good in Arabic please mark the table telling us not to translate them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Epidemiological data
Hi Doc. For epidemiological data, do you think it's appropriate to use the WorldHealthRankings website [4], rather than secondary sources? My concern here is that it's difficult to find up-to-date epidemiological data in secondary sources. Your advice would be much appreciated. I probably should have asked your advice before working on this section of the article, but the previous version had no supporting references at all. Thanks, Alan Merrit (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about the world cancer report? I have WHO data as well. Would not use the source you mention. Here is the 2008 WCR [5] 2014 is out but not sure how to get access. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks. The last few times I checked the WHO website, the data was quite old. I'll have another look though. I'll check out the world cancer report ASAP too. Cheers, Alan Merrit (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I checked the WHO website [6], and the most recent "Persons, all ages" death and DALY estimates there is 2004. I don't have access to the 2014 World Cancer Report right now, but will see if I can get it through work. Cheers, Alan Merrit (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I restored your edits properly. Please check, I am signing off soon. I was reverting an earlier edit. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for the changes and notes on GA review. With respect to removing sections that are not in MEDMOS, I'll combine types and composition into the history section. Is the consenus not to include any subsections? For instance, under Risk and complications, we would prefer I remove all the subheadings and convert to a series of paragraphs. Ian Furst (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, just finished removing all the cite isbn's and cite pmid's. That is brutal and boring. If you need another $200 to get the bot done tell me where to direct the donation. Never again. Ian Furst (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is closed. User needs to drop the stick and move on.
Hi Doc James,
May I clarify an issue at the QG RfC? The following isn't a matter of "QuackGuru is sometimes difficult, but he's right about stuff".
If Smith publishes a finding, and a few years later Jones repeats the finding and sources it to Smith, proper protocol is to cite Smith. Right?
If multiple editors agree to cite Smith, and "Editor: John Doe" keeps insisting Jones is better because Jones is more recent, John Doe is mistaken both in substance and process. Right?
That's what's going on in this thread, which is part of the evidence submitted. (Smith and Jones, here, being White '04 and Adama '11 respectively)
I know you looked at this, because of your comment here, yet all you say in that comment is basically, "hey, he added Jones [7], what's the big deal". But it's poor conduct (both on substance and process). Do you disagree?
I'm not trying to get you to agree with all of the evidence submitted; I agree some of it is outdated and/or poorly presented. But I've yet to hear you acknowledge the validity of a single piece of evidence in that RfC. regards, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 03:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proper protocol is to cite Jones here at Wikipedia as presumable Jones analysed Smith as well as other stuff.
If multiple people are disagreeing next step is a RfC to bring in more viewpoints to build consensus. If none of the editors are doing this than no one is following process. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Doc, it was just for the one finding, 5 in 10^6 SAE's, full stop. In that case you cite Smith, the source for the finding. At least in my world. Are there different standards in medical journals than in basic science journals? (And no, the "if" you mention above was not the case, cf. below.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 08:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You get this, right? Otherwise people would just write articles mentioning a lot of important discoveries in passing, and then get cited -- for those findings per se, not any new analysis -- instead of the original sources, just because "recent". --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI)
Positions are
Support the use of a 2004 paper: Middle 8, A1candidate, Herbxue (a WP:SPA), Mallexikon
Question the use of a 2004 paper: QG and MrBill3
Yet somehow you lumped MrBill3 into the support for a 2004 paper which is not at all clear per your last statement in this section [8]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at this bit "I think the "few reviews are being published" exception is to allow a 5 year plus review when there is not a more recent one, or a more recent one that is comparable available. Why would it be appropriate to use a 10 year old review when there is one that is from this year and one that is from two years ago? That you have shown seven reviews from 2010 to the present pretty much negates the idea that few reviews are being published. But again the relaxing of the 5 year rule IMO is to allow use of a older study when there is not a more current one available." It appears that he then changed his position to "I agree that if Adams is citing a number from White it should be sourced to White. With that change, as the numbers are in the article, have we reached consensus." Still were is the RfC to bring wider input to this decision? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re RfC/A, nobody asked for one -- and how does that excuse IDHT? Every time an editor holds up a discussion with IDHT, the solution is an RfC/A? Try being on the receiving end of QG's shenagigans, like Guy/JzG was, and see how long that theory holds up. The fact is, I would have welcomed QG asking for one, hell, doing anything to move the conversation forward, instead of going in circles, acting like answers to his objections had never been given (aka IDHT). You keep shifting from a consideration of conduct to content; as much as you'd prefer this to be an RfC/A, that's not the light in which to consider the evidence. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 14:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re why the older review, because it had a fact -- a rate for SAE's -- that I thought was germaine, and the older review is the original source. Re other reviews, there's considerable heterogeneity in what they examined; see thread.[11][12] --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI)
Is there any reason that the template {{annotated image 4}} wouldn't work correctly (i.e., just annotate text on images in the corresponding language) on other language wikis if I just copied/pasted the code into the corresponding template name on non-English wikis? Not sure if you know the answer to this, but you're probably the best person to ask. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to get big templates to work in other languages. I have not had success. Let me know if you figure out how. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is closed. User needs to drop the stick and move on.
Hi, one more thing re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). I've had little if any interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of Mallexikon (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You made unsupported claims and when called on it did not withdraw them or provide support for them. Most of the evidence you provided was ancient. You are right that QG was outnumbered by a number of accounts; however, many of these mostly or only edit acupuncture articles. Much of what he does is support by guidelines and thus by consensus. A small local consensus does not trump a community wide consensus. It is unfortunate that no one has tried a RfC regarding content to bring more editors to the issues. I fault User:QuackGuru the same amount as others involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. So, are you going answer my question? Let me try that again: "Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? (You never did say, and neither did jps!) What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too!" Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 14:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You see that is the thing. I consider your multiple attempts across multiple pages to ban QG bad enough. You need to drop the stick.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that we are speaking different languages. There was a statement that QC added "5 in 10^6 SAE", this dif added "5 per one million" [13]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to create a bot to substitute the above templates. No monetary award necessary :-) However since these edits will be made on widely read and edited pages, I think we need to be extra careful to make sure that the edits comply with WP:CITEVAR. I also agree that the citations should be entered on one line. The vertical format is appropriate for {{cite pmid}} but not {{cite journal}}. The vertical format fragments the wikitext making it a pain to scroll through and much more difficult to read. For a similar reason, I prefer a single author parameter in preference to verbose "first1, last1, first2, last2" parameters. Boghog (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have currently logged into your TWB account and I do not know where is the "manual delivery" section. Perhaps a screenshoot or you can explain it to me? HYH.124 (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure, but when reviewing and reading the article, I made use of Google Translate and found that most results tally. It seems like the work was completed hastily. HYH.124 (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Efforts needed for cross-language merging of article
Hello, Doc James, I am here to ask for your help in cross-wiki efforts.
I noticed that you have merged the article Ischaemic heart disease into Coronary artery disease. However, Wikidata is not updated and also I have decided to fix this issue and also removing interwiki links from other Wikipedias which cause confusion with Wikidata. Here are what I have done as of now (rather tiring):
I would like to ask for your help to start cross-language efforts in merging articles listed here. Also, ru:Ишемическая болезнь сердца, which corresponds with "Ischaemic", is a featured article. Thus ru:Коронарная недостаточность (corresponds with "Coronory") should be merged into the FA instead.
I can actually choose to redirect shorter articles to longer articles, but I fear the local community. I will try to do this on my own. HYH.124 (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made some edits to the part of this article dealing with efficacy in mild to moderate depression. Knowing that you are a skeptic on this subject, I thought you would be a good person to look this over for balance. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but why was Pharmacovigilance removed? readers should know there is a discussion in the medical community about bleedings by dabigatran, probably caused by discontinuation through adverse effects (gastric upset), switching from warfarin to dabigatran (massive in the US), dosing errors in renal patients, use by older patients, of label uses (important in the US) and overconsumption of aspirin, specifically in the US, not in Europe.
in uses 1.3 valvular atrial fibrillation should be a valvular atrial fibrillation.
I was looking for heart sounds and came across this file of your heart . Were you in bigeminy or something? It ends OK but the beginning doesn't sound too good. Thanks for putting it up. Will use for a video. Ian Furst (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a split S2 I think. Will see about uploading a longer version. Was / still am a bit of an extreme athlete [18] and thus I guess my heart sounds are not completely normal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you get a good long recording (or of abnormals) I've got a program that will take out the background noise pretty well just let me know. You must not sleep or something - busy guy. Ian Furst (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded a cleaner version of the file (two versions are here). That one didn't have much noise in it. I removed what noise was there and normalized it but I didn't want to mess with the pitch of it. Let me know if there's something else with it that would make it more life-like. To me it sounds too high pitched/tinny but the last time I heard croup was 15 years ago. Also any other files you think could do with noise reduction. It's pretty simple. Ian Furst (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see several primary article cited throughout the page - why have these not been removed as well?
- The majority of the content I added was related to recent clinical trials, and thus have yet to be included in secondary articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijnijnokm (talk • contribs) 05:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DocJames
I would like to start a page on incurabale diseases, but I need some guidance. According to this page, there is no such list. Ihave a number of questions:
1. where there are a number of variants of a disease, should all be listed? Eg: diabetes or diabetes, type I and diabetes type II
1a. Are there any diseases with fatal and non-fatal variants/ strains? (in which case the question above becomes crucial)
2. What to call such a page: for such a list is the term "diseases" wide enough to cover "disorders", as in the example I cited above? I consulted this.
3. Besides separating it into diseases, disorders, etc, I would like to also add a second column indicating whether it is life-threatening. But I guess there is no black/ white clear line here, as even AIDS can now be managed for decades.
3a. Might also be valuabe to be able to add a column on the status indicating whether it is transmissible/ contagious.
4. A separate column for alternative names of in backets with the main name (Tay–Sachs, GM2 gangliosidosis or hexosaminidase)?
5. what to do with things that are not diseases, such as permanent injuries (spinal cord injury; effects of a stroke etc), and conditions (albinism etc).
Hi Doc,
Thanks for your note and the links. We typically stay away from editing the pages to avoid conflict of interests unless there is no response from the main contributors. (We get paid for consulting and training we provide hospitals, universities and pharma companies on how to use Wikipedia ethically and also legally). We get in touch with experts like you if a healthcare related page needs correction. So you might not see us editing pages. Certainly familiar with the links you have sent us.
The reason we formed the group is to provide a bridge to the entities to ETHICALLY fix legitimate errors on healthcare pages. As you know hospitals and companies do not get involved in providing the wealth of information they have about some major topics, notably pharmaceutical products, fearing backlash. Some are paying unknown agencies to promote marketing material, which is not good for the Wikipedia community. Will be glad to work with you and other docs in the community. Hope to meet you soon in person soon at a conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrect-Health (talk • contribs) 12:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC) --WikiCorrect-Health (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are a team of 5 at this point. If you think we should use individual accounts, please let us know. Again we are not planning on editing pages unless something very important pops up.--WikiCorrect-Health (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
