User talk:Doc James: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:31, 31 August 2014

Translation
Main page

Those Involved
(sign up)

Newsletter

This is a Wikipedia user 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.

Please click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

User:EranBot account flags

Please let me know what I'm missing here? According to Special:ListGroupRights, the only permission that Autopatrolled adds is autopatrol; the skipcaptcha permission is bundled in to Autoconfirmed. Please review and let me know? (Note, I did approve the bot trial on the RFBOT page already). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so it is confirmed user they need than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Adding the confirmed group is doing nothing at all, and the autopatrolled flag does nothing except assign the permission autopatrol, impacting the tags on Newly Created Pages for new pages patrollers. If this account ends up needing a very fast ratelimit down the line, that will be taken care of with the noratelimit premission, currently part of the bot group. If the trial could not technically complete without noratelimit, then the temporary workaround would be to add account creator group, but this is almost never an issue during bot trials.

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)[reply]

Hey User:Eran does your bot need either of these to avoid captcha? It is likely old enough and has made enough edits not to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once the bot is autoconfirmed (4 days since registration) it isn't required I think. Eran (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great if you do not need them I will remove. Let me know if this causes problems and I will return. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving text from one article to another

Yes, I agree. It was my oversight. Enthusiast (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References and Footnotes backwards section titles; functionality doesn't depend on titles

Why, 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)[reply]

Tested and proven. Done. Appreciate your concern, but this is exactly how it's done in many articles. Paulscrawl (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure do not care what they are called. Was just putting it under a single section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on the article talk page. Paulscrawl (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how to paraphrase please explain--02:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)S03042812 (talk)S03042812S03042812 (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

World Cancer Report

Hey, 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)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hey I am a big fan of ridiculous citation clutter. The references section isn't really for reading and IMNBHO the more information you can provide about a source and the specific location being referenced the better. Just sayin. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)2: Here is how I did it. {{cite book |editor-last1= Stewart |editor-first1= Bernard W. |editor-last2= Wild |editor-first2= Christopher P. |title= World Cancer Report 2014 |year= 2014 |publisher= [[World Health Organization]] |isbn= 9789283204299 |chapter= Ch. 2: Cancer Etiology § 6: Diet, obesity and physical activity |pages= 124-33 |ref={{SfnRef|Stewart & Wild|2014}}}}

Which gives^[1]

Note the SfnRef template as a ref parameter allows for the use of the sfn template for citations to other chapters like say {{sfn|Stewart & Wild|2014|loc= Ch. 3: Cancer biology § 4: Epigenetics. pp. 214-21}}

Which gives:^[2]

^ Stewart, Bernard W.; Wild, Christopher P., eds. (2014). "Ch. 2: Cancer Etiology § 6: Diet, obesity and physical activity". World Cancer Report 2014. World Health Organization. pp. 124–33. ISBN 9789283204299.
^ Stewart & Wild 2014, Ch. 3: Cancer biology § 4: Epigenetics. pp. 214-21.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For your work on Diet and cancer! - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry not sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aripiprazole

Thanks 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)[reply]

Yes in a way. I am of the opinion that their is room for both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mean to be tendentious. Its just that the issue of reliability of sources comes up quite regularly and is pretty central to everything that goes on here. I suppose I may simply be recapping a lot of issues that were already hashed out before I started here.

There are of course different standards of evidence, in that the FDA approves drugs based on its perception that on a risk adjusted basis, approval is likely to be better for public health than non-approval. Cochrane is able demand a higher standard of proof. And they are pretty locked into RCTs as where this proof must come from, with which I mostly agree.

One practical question that comes up with respect to the Cochrane position on dropouts is that it seems to make it impossible for them to ever recognize the effectiveness of an antipsychotic drug for relapse prevention. The dropout rate is higher in the placebo arms than it is in the treatment arms, and you can of course never reduce placebo dropouts by improving the quality of your drug. And you can't hold patients against their will, at least not in relapse prevention trials. So the reviews seem a little pointless, as they seem to be demanding evidence that can never be obtained. I don't think anyone has ever done an outcomes-based trial of the effects of a completely vegetable free diet either, but somehow we all seem to be pretty convinced that its a bad idea.

Part of my concern with this (I fully acknowledge that like most people, I'm a grab bag of biases and preformed opinions) is that keeping schizophrenic people on therapy is a pretty difficult thing to do already, and the psychiatrists I've spoken (with the exception of David Healy, who will no longer speak to me in the aftermath of the removal of the post-SSRI sexual dysfunction article) to are overwhelmingly convinced that they are better off if they do. Having the efficacy section of this article start out with a ambiguous statement about whether these drugs are helpful likely does not help keep people on therapy, and while I have no first hand experience with the patients (or the drugs!), this worries me a little bit. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per "never reduce placebo dropouts by improving the quality of your drug". It is called intention to treat analysis. You would need to carry this out in a country with a functional health care system that actually has the ability to follow up their patients (think Sweden).

It is hard yes but for the medication that has the largest sales in the world you think someone if they really wanted to could figure out whether or not they work. But of course if you can create a medication that has the greatest sales in the world without providing proper evidence why provide it? Things can only get worse for the company from here.

With respect to long term outcomes we have the WHO study which did not find benefits. Thus yes their is concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I enjoy this type of back and forth (I never learn anything new talking to people who agree with me), but if it becomes tiresome let me know and I will back off.

I certainly agree with you that greed has made a mess out of our healthcare system. And though I see it throughout the entire system here in the U.S., with little signs of specific concentration in any one sector, I'd also agree with you that psychiatric drugs are pretty much the poster child for the problem.
That being said, and being one who likes to split hairs, I don't think the problem with high dropout rates is entirely on of companies trying to do trials on the cheap. As I understand it, clinical investigators are paid on a per patient recruited basis. If your dropout rate is 50%, you are essentially paying for the trial twice. I would think they would be financially motivated to do as many trials as they could in countries that have lower dropout rates if such countries could be identified.
The "functional healthcare system" comment really struck my interest, and I spent a couple of hours trying to identify schizophrenia trials from such countries. Its hard to do, and most of the ones I found were terminated for poor recruitment. I think its hard to convince people with good healthcare to join a trial of this type, the the trials get run in countries with crappy healthcare systems where it is easier to recruit patients. I eventually found one trial in Spain with a 6% dropout rate at 6 weeks and one in Germany with a 39% dropout rate at 8 weeks. So I don't know any more than I did before spending time on this. I'll keep an eye out for data bearing on this question in the future.
One last comment that may be relevant is that its not just a question of tracking them down, you also have to get them to complete one or more pyschiatric exams that require their active participation and which must be performed by a trained interveiwer.
Did not understand the remark about "things can only go downhill for them from here". Are you referring to BMS and some sort of liability issue? The stock itself is doing very well, in part because they've cut costs even faster than their revenue has dropped, and in part because they've done some very nice work lately the immunotherapy of cancer. They appear to have cured some people with metastatic melanoma, and based on early stage results there is a little bit of hope they will do the same in a couple of other metastatic cancer types, possibly including NSCLC. Its pretty neat stuff, and I wish the industry produced more stuff like this. They might be on the cusp of making a very large pile of money, and doing so legitimately by solving an important problem that others have repeatedly failed at over the last 60 years.
Forgive my ignorance, I don't know which WHO study you are referring to. If you can be more specific I'll gladly take a look. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will touch on one aspect and the rest latter. Per "companies trying to do trials on the cheap". It is not that they are trying it is that their are issues with health care in the United States were most trials are done and a good trial may not be possible their. Sweden has universal health care records for the entire country. Something that is illegal in many countries but allows high quality research. One can thus follow up everyone within a group. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I recall Denmark does this too, and I've seen some fascinating studied come out of that database. Requires the public's trust that the government will ensure that their healthcare info will not be used against them. I'm not entirely sure that such trust would be justified in the States, as the balance of power between the individual and corporations is very different here. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Pharyngitis

Hey there. Why did you feel it was necessary to revert the article and dismiss my edits?

Because you edits broke the references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Trouble with your editor

Sorry 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)[reply]

I switched browsers and cleaned up the mess. I'm not sure if the browser is the cause though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breedentials (talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

It sounds like you are a little to close to the topic at hand and thus should probably not work on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not really interested in the topic. Just giving you a heads up about needing to paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THAT IS DAGBANI-FROM GHANA --TIMESPEAKSLIFE (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to better handle citations with a PMID and no url

I 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)[reply]

If the pmid is present the url is not needed as it will automatically link to pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

msu chm

Everything 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)[reply]

Just because some did not get caught copy and pasting does not mean that others get to do so. Please paraphrase going forwards. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A few reasons. 1) we need independent sources to show notability 2) we do not link like from organizations names on Wikipedia to their website like you have done. If there are third party references we can add a section.

Take a look at epilepsy for an example of how it can be done. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agmatine

Here'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)[reply]

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

Please read WP:MEDRS. We use secondary sources rather than primary sources here for a number of reasons. If there is high quality secondary sources we can discuss restoring content supported by them. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C diff

I 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)[reply]

Yes I am happy to move it there if you feel it is important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome! I believe that 'colitis' likely best incorporates the idea of a full clinical syndrome, with "CD diarrhea" more descriptive of symptomatology and also just more colloquial.Brian Gilcrease (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Programming

Not much anymore, but I'll have a look. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Senegal in List of Ebola outbreaks

In 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)[reply]

I am looking at the 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak page and do not see it mentioned. What does WHO say? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drowning Chain of Survival

I 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

Hello 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)[reply]

Please read WP:CONSENT or email me and I can help you out. The owner of the copyright needs to email WP:OTRS but if you send it to me I can take care of it. My email is jmh649 at gmail dot com Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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… 108.185.129.48 (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Gad[reply]

P.S. I realize that we are busy in our demanding daily activities and would, therefore, like this matter resolved soon.

You need to read WP:MEDRS and review article. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about new Contributors Feature

Hi Jmh, I have a quick question for you about the contributors feature that's been discussed on the Wikiproject Medicine page. I've seen it on many medical pages now and I like it, but is it supposed to be on all Wikiproject Medicine associated pages? If so, I've seen some pages haven't been done yet, but I wanted to check with you to see if it's supposed to be on all of them in the first place. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agmatine

Obviously, I was not aware of the secondary sources intent. As indicated, I preferably chose references of the original discoveries. Now that I understand, it makes the job much easier as the main review I chose is the most recent general and comprehensive review of the field.

Would it be compliant if I will cite the aforementioned review plus 3 or 4 other reviews? And, should I leave the primary citations as is, or weed out most of them?

Let me know.

Best... 108.185.129.48 (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Gad[reply]

[1] Stewart, Bernard W.; Wild, Christopher P., eds. (2014). "Ch. 2: Cancer Etiology § 6: Diet, obesity and physical activity". World Cancer Report 2014. World Health Organization. pp. 124–33. ISBN 9789283204299.

[FOOTNOTEStewart_&_Wild2014Ch._3:_Cancer_biology_§_4:_Epigenetics._pp._214-21-2] Stewart & Wild 2014, Ch. 3: Cancer biology § 4: Epigenetics. pp. 214-21.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 263: / Line 263: @@
 Hi Jmh, I have a quick question for you about the contributors feature that's been discussed on the Wikiproject Medicine page. I've seen it on many medical pages now and I like it, but is it supposed to be on all Wikiproject Medicine associated pages? If so, I've seen some pages haven't been done yet, but I wanted to check with you to see if it's supposed to be on all of them in the first place. Thanks. [[User:TylerDurden8823|TylerDurden8823]] ([[User talk:TylerDurden8823|talk]]) 21:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
+== Agmatine ==
+Obviously, I was not aware of the secondary sources intent. As indicated, I  preferably chose references of the original discoveries. Now that I understand, it makes the job much easier as the main review I chose is the most recent general and comprehensive review of the field.
+Would it be compliant if I will cite the aforementioned review plus 3 or 4 other reviews? And, should I leave the primary citations as is, or weed out most of them?
+Let me know.
+Best...
+[[Special:Contributions/108.185.129.48|108.185.129.48]] ([[User talk:108.185.129.48|talk]]) 03:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Gad