User talk:Doc James: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Aliceasz - "→DROWNING: new section" |
→Agmatine: new section |
||
Line 311: | Line 311: | ||
We appreciate if you can revert to our contribution date 10 August |
We appreciate if you can revert to our contribution date 10 August |
||
Thanks <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aliceasz|Aliceasz]] ([[User talk:Aliceasz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aliceasz|contribs]]) 15:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Thanks <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aliceasz|Aliceasz]] ([[User talk:Aliceasz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aliceasz|contribs]]) 15:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Agmatine == |
|||
Dear James, |
|||
Thank you for your prompt response. |
|||
• As to the references used in my update: |
|||
1. I have rechecked this issue and all the entered citation were from high quality scientific journals. Citations are preferably to references which made the original discoveries, as credit is given where credit is due. |
|||
2. The main review I chose is the most recent general review of the field. It represents the consensus opinion of 16 independent leading investigators in the field from around the world. This is unique in scientific publishing. One cannot expect a more objective review than that. |
|||
3. These are the highest standards in scientific publishing that I know. |
|||
Otherwise, I need your help in understanding what you mean by high quality secondary sources. |
|||
• I noticed "opinion" statements in the update which are unfit for an encyclopedia and these should be deleted. |
|||
• Few changes made to my update are inaccurate and should be revised. |
|||
Let me know how you decide to proceed. |
|||
Best… |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/108.185.129.48|108.185.129.48]] ([[User talk:108.185.129.48|talk]]) 20:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Gad |
|||
P.S. I realize that we are busy in our demanding daily activities and would, therefore, like this matter resolved soon. |
Revision as of 20:55, 30 August 2014
Translation Main page | Those Involved (sign up) | Newsletter |
Please click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online.
Hello, Jmh. I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia. I think I made a mistake in editing the article about Ebola you reverted, and I was wondering if I could gain your assistence in making it better. My reason for editing the article is this: The phrase "[ebola] is only spread by direct contact with the secretions from someone who is showing signs of infection" is wrong. The medical data on this (as supported by the FAQ sheet of the WHO which I linked) state that transmission may occur when one comes into contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, through blood-to-blood contact or through mucus membranes, *whether or not* the patient is showing symptoms. As long as the virus is present, it can be transmitted. Yes, chances of transmission are much smaller before symptoms occur, and massively increase as soon as symptoms occur, but are nevertheless there. My question to you is twofold: - I know my first attempt at editing this is a bit haphazard, and I should think of a better way. But for what reasons did *you* revert my edit? - How would you improve the article? Thanks for your response! Gr, --Gralgrathor (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
User:EranBot account flagsPlease let me know what I'm missing here? According to Special:ListGroupRights, the only permission that Autopatrolled adds is
User:EranBot currently is: Member of: Autopatrolled and Confirmed users Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users So neither of those groups should be required for the trial, or for ongoing operations at all. I certainly don't want to wheel war with you over this; if you agree please revert this account back to normal, if not we can discuss further. If there is a technical bug you've come across I'd be very interested in it, as it could impact other bot trials that are in progress. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 23:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
QuestionWhen you say "reply on my page" do mean here or your website? Avery Arora 23:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreakYour message Welcome to Wikipedia. In this edit [1] content copied and pasted from [2] was added. Due to licensing we must paraphrase everything we add to Wikipedia. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks Doc James. I will para phrase it today. New to the platform . Still need to learn to all the tricks.. Appreciate your help. --BrianGroen (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi doc James i have updated it.. hope it is correct now.. Thank you for your help.--BrianGroen (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
editing physical therapy pagesorry dear, i edited your page for good faith and knowledge. basically, physical therapy is celebrated as world day. so, i included this information on your page. if you add such information on your physical therapy page, it will be more informative that physical therapy is celebrated as world day. thanks
The Signpost: 20 August 2014
Moving text from one article to anotherYes, I agree. It was my oversight. Enthusiast (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
References and Footnotes backwards section titles; functionality doesn't depend on titlesWhy, what do you think I missed at WP:ASL? Looks like human-readable (but non-parsed) section titles of References (used for footnotes) and Footnotes (for References, some of which use sfn citation style), completely backward. The section names are arbitrary and not a matter of automated parsing. I'll try in sandbox Paulscrawl (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
how to paraphrase please explain--02:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)S03042812 (talk)S03042812S03042812 (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Paraphrase means to "put in your own words" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC) World Cancer ReportHey, when I'm referencing the World Cancer Report is it better to put section numbers or page numbers? I don't want ridiculous citation clutter but I do want what I'm citing to be clear. Thanks! Keilana|Parlez ici 03:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ThanksFor your work on Diet and cancer! - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Hi doc! Am wikicology. I need your assistance. I want to give more attention to Genetics and Molecular biology. I reali want to work on genes. Much work has been done on human genes though yet to be completed. I want to complete it and more importantly work on viral, Bacteria and Ave (chicken) genes. But to my suprise the template { {PBB|geneid=gene I'd} } that links to the Genbank doesn't work for some sets of gene. Even for the human gene that has not been worked on. Am confused because I felts the template is supposed to be applicable to other genes provided they are in Geneban. Please I want you to put me through on this. Thanks Wikicology (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
AripiprazoleThanks for your commentary and edits on Aripiprazole. I definitely made some errors and its always good to have a second pair of eyes on these things. I hope my commentary on the issue of meta analysis articles containing both a mathematically-driven, "data" component and an editorial component made at least a little bit of sense to you. I have a great deal of respect for the folks at Cochrane, and my comments were only intended to make the point that they are human like the rest of us. I certainly see them as one of a small handful of top tier sources, and that may get lost in my arguments that on most subjects there are a few other groups whose views deserve equal prominence. I appreciate and respect the work you do here, and the many kindnesses you have shown me over the last 2 years. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Edit on PharyngitisHey there. Why did you feel it was necessary to revert the article and dismiss my edits?
Re: Trouble with your editorSorry about the mess. I have no idea yet what the root cause is. I have started this discussion requesting help. Breedentials (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jmh649!Nice to meet you. I understand that each time I make edits to Ken Getz's wikipage, they are quickly deleted because it looks as though I'm copying and pasting from another source. I am copying and pasting - but from my own word document, offline, which contains edits to the page as approved by Ken Getz himself (my manger!) Is it possible to keep my edits present or do I need to write the words verbatim into the document from my current word document? Thanks! Precipice711 (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Precipice711
sir can u paraphrase for me as i am new and could not do so please do the same so that i can learn calcutta national medical collegeS03042812 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)S03042812S03042812 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
THAT IS DAGBANI-FROM GHANA --TIMESPEAKSLIFE (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Suggestion to better handle citations with a PMID and no urlI put in a suggestion at Module talk:Citation/CS1#Suggestion; if url="null" and PMID is valid then set URL to PMID-url to have the URL be returned as the Pubmed url if URL is not given in citation. Do you think this is a good idea? If so, please post at wp:med talk. ~Technophant (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
msu chmEverything was paraphrased except a portion of the overview part. Please go ahead and take another look. I've looked at the wiki pages of other medical schools and noticed that they've done the same. In fact most of them did not even cite the sources at all, I don't see the reason for having such outdated materials on our univ.'s page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msugogreengowhite (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Jmh,I appreciate your interest in Otitis Media, however I do not see the problem with the 'more information' section I added. I added two sources of which one is for professional usage, and the other in lay terms, both nonprofits... How are they 'off topic'? Do I need to reference that I put them up? Please elaborate on your decision to take down my post. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Bluestone, M.D. (talk • contribs) 15:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
AgmatineHere's the message I've just sent you: 08-29-2014 Dear Dr. Heilman, I hope my communication finds you well. As I indicated in my previous (07-10-2014) communication with you (enclosed below), the changes you have made left the readers ignorant of essential information. And Wikipedia is thus, losing credibility. Since you did not respond to my suggestions, I have now edited the information according to these suggestions. To my surprise, however, I found not only that I cannot edit the page, but that at the same time you keep editing the page, deleting large portions and further degrading the value of this entry. I believe you have unjustly blocked my access to the WikiProject on Agmatine. I have spent a lifetime on agmatine research and together with Varda Gilad have developed it into an effective treatment. And these efforts are still ongoing. I hate to see such a poor Wikipedia entry on Agmatine. The right thing to do is to allow my current edition. It will bring the Agmatine entry back to standard for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. Thank you in advance for your prompt response. Best regards, -GadGmgilad (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Gad M. Gilad, Ph.D. Research, Gilad&Gilad LLC 19020 Kittridge St., Unit 1, Reseda, CA 91335 Tel: 1-818-708-8505; Cell: 1-323-599-0774 Email: gmg@GiladandGilad.com; www.ForNerveHealth.com 07-10-2014 Dear Dr. Heilman, I have just become aware of the changes made to the WikiProject on Agmatine. I recognize some of the concerns raised about my upgrading revision. Before this revision however, the article about agmatine has remained for years below any standard for any half respectful encyclopedia. Nevertheless, the substantial deletions you have made are completely unjustified. They have left the article without most of the pertinent information about this important subject. As a result, readers are left ignorant of essential information. And Wikipedia is thus, losing credibility. I would therefore, like to suggest the following: 1. Unless you find real misinformation or flaws in the article, please restore the article to its June 20, 2014, version. 2. I will then supply citation to original studies, rather than to reviews in order to satisfy Wikipedia "rules"; and will provide references for or modify, or delete, any statement that may suggest bias. 3. It is extremely important for those in the field of agmatine research that advances in the field will be adequately and accurately presented in an unbiased way! Thank you in advance for your prompt response. Best regards, -Gad P.S. I am not an experienced contributor to Wikipedia and would appreciate any specific suggestions you may have. Gad M. Gilad, Ph.D. Research, Gilad&Gilad LLC 19020 Kittridge St., Unit 1, Reseda, CA 91335 Tel: 1-818-708-8505; Cell: 1-323-599-0774 Email: gmg@GiladandGilad.com; www.ForNerveHealth.com
C diffI notice you were inspired to overhaul C diff article at the same time I was. Did you see my talk regarding "C diff colitis"? Thoughts? Brian Gilcrease (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
ProgrammingNot much anymore, but I'll have a look. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Inclusion of Senegal in List of Ebola outbreaksIn response to your reversion summary "If all one needs to do is have someone in their country with the disease than we need to add th US to the list.": we have; it's in a note that is linked beside Liberia. My understanding is that the US and Spain cases are classified as Liberian cases because their leaving Liberia was intentional, unlike the Senegal case and the first Nigerian cases, which are part of the natural spread, so to speak. If you still disagree, then you'll also need to change the main article, which lists Senegal as well. JamesDouch (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Drowning Chain of SurvivalI do have the authorization to publish the content on wikipedia The text and figure is a ownership from the authors (which include my husband Dr David Szpilman and Jonathon Weber from New Zeland)that´s why text may seems similar. Thanks you for keep it this updated Alice DROWNINGHello We try to insert new and important information on DROWNING extracted from Szpilman D, Bierens JJLM, Handley AJ, Orlowski JP. Drowning: Current Concepts. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2102-10 We appreciate if you can revert to our contribution date 10 August Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliceasz (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC) AgmatineDear James, Thank you for your prompt response. • As to the references used in my update: 1. I have rechecked this issue and all the entered citation were from high quality scientific journals. Citations are preferably to references which made the original discoveries, as credit is given where credit is due. 2. The main review I chose is the most recent general review of the field. It represents the consensus opinion of 16 independent leading investigators in the field from around the world. This is unique in scientific publishing. One cannot expect a more objective review than that. 3. These are the highest standards in scientific publishing that I know. Otherwise, I need your help in understanding what you mean by high quality secondary sources. • I noticed "opinion" statements in the update which are unfit for an encyclopedia and these should be deleted. • Few changes made to my update are inaccurate and should be revised. Let me know how you decide to proceed. Best… 108.185.129.48 (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Gad P.S. I realize that we are busy in our demanding daily activities and would, therefore, like this matter resolved soon. |