User talk:Doc James

 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. Atherosclerosis "Secondary not primary sources please." I'm not sure what you're asking for or why you undid my edit to the atherosclerosis page. I provided direct references to two landmark studies that I think would be considered very important to the article. Your reversion of my edit to "Ebola virus disease" Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Ebola virus disease article. As counter arguments to your reason for doing so ("Restored to proper place"), I would like to bring to your attention Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Standard appendices and footers and this opinion by an admin. Best—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC) At WPMED we typically do not recommend "see also" sections per WP:MEDMOS. And usual practice is to put it in the external links section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC) RISUG Edit I see you took out the resource for Male Contraception Initiative. This organization speaks directly to developers and works to present information in a layperson-friendly way. Being directly on point, I can't see why this resource shouldn't be included. The resource goes into both RISUG and Vasalgel, which actually use different polymers. It may be worthwhile to split this article up. Vasalgel's method of action is to block sperm while allowing the seminal plasma from the epididymis to pass. RISUG, on the other hand, blocks most of the sperm. It destroys the membrane on the head of the residual sperm as they pass because of the opposing charge from the polymer. This causes the loss of the enzyme required to fertilize an egg. Schoolglutton (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Schoolglutton We are an encyclopedia not a web directory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC) What do you think the section "External Links" section is for then? You see this across Wikipedia entries. And how would you differentiate the Male Contraception Initiative link from the other links within the "External Links" section? This appears arbitrary. Unless you can give me a legitimate reason that applies to the link I provided and not to the other existing links, I'm putting it back. Schoolglutton (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Schoolglutton While for one we already link to it ONCE in that section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC) The Signpost: 24 September 2014 Featured content: Oil paintings galore In the media: Indian political editing, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Congressional chelonii Recent research: 99.25% of Wikipedia birthdates accurate; focused Wikipedians live longer; merging WordNet, Wikipedia and Wiktionary Traffic report: Wikipedia watches the referendum in Scotland WikiProject report: GAN reviewers take note: competition time Arbitration report: Banning Policy, Gender Gap, and Waldorf education Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Malaria "The one looks good"? You can't be serious. If Wikipedia is showing such pictures, suggesting this to be good net use practice, it is of putting lives at risk. --rtc (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC) A couple of things. 1) if you are going to provide recommendations they need to be referenced 2) thanks for providing a better image, have removed the one that has one not so go example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Anyway found and added a ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Psychosis Why did you remove my edit without justification on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex-nimh-researcher (talk • contribs) 21:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Did you look at the talk page? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Primary sources Thanks. I removed link and will keep in mind for future. Dr G (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Great. Good having you here by the way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Primary sources Why is it bad to list primary sources? Isn't that the ideal way to get information in this context? They're fairly mainstream studies as well; Dean Ornish's lifestyle program is even covered by Medicare. We use secondary sources such as review article rather than primary sources for a number of reasons. These are discussed at WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC) TM Hi Doc James - I left a message on the transcendental meditation talk page about suggesting a site to be added to the page but you thought it looked like spam. I wanted to explain and ask your help. The Meditation Trust is a non profit charity dedicated to raising awareness about TM and the benefits it can bring, especially to people suffering from illness, stress and mental health problems. I admit my message might have been clumsy but I am not well versed in the protocol with wikipedia and it seems like a minefield trying to get the etiquette right. I wanted to message you to say I am not a spammer but someone who is passionate about the work that the Trust do and that I do genuinely believe that the Trust site has a great deal of well researched information (with a great deal of medical citations) and is a valuable resource about TM. I am messaging you directly hoping that you can advise me on how or what I should do to get some awareness raised for the Trust charity on Wikipedia? As I stress, it is a non profit organisation - the charity number is on their website. I also made a mistake with my username choice which was brought to my attention and I since changed, just in case you wondered why I have changed that. I hope you can point me in the right direction and help and forgive me if my first message on the TM page was a bit naive. Sllsuk (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC) No worries. That link is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not here to promote charities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Hi James - thanks for the response and I appreciate that wikipedia is not here to promote charities or anyone but I wanted to ask is wikipedia not here to suggest the best information resources on a topic? I believe that if you have a look at the Meditation Trust site and the level of information contained you will see it is a valuable resource: http://www.meditationtrust.com/transcendental-meditation-benefits/ The TM.org site is listed and this site has more information than TM.org Sllsuk (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC) References Hello James, you have written and suggest me to follow: A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Resources and inside there are http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ is a useful source, so what's wrong with Colorectal cancer#Tumor markers by using one of useful source. Thank you for your attention.Gsarwa (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Please read WP:MEDRS. Pubmed finds both primary and secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Commentary on overall situation I want to be sure you understand these comments are not directed at you personally, but on the overall atmosphere and actions of editors and anons on these pages. In many cases its possible to see the reasons why things happen even if its unpleasant to watch it unfold. Starstr (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Also, things can mean and imply different things in different dialects so I apologize if there is some sort of miscommunication. Starstr (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC) It is your call on what you wish to do. Commenting on contributors rather than content is frowned upon. I am just giving you a heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Chan, L; Arunachalam, S; Kirsop, B (2009 Aug). "Open access: a giant leap towards bridging health inequities". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 87 (8): 631–5. PMID 19705015. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Atherosclerosis My amendment to the diet section of the Atherosclerosis page is based on proven clinical interventions where atherosclerosis had been effectively cured in groups of patients, and epidemiology involving people groups who are virtually free of atherosclerosis, backed up by the president-elect of the American College of Cardiology, the former President of the country's top rated cardiac care hospital, and the largest healthcare organization in the United States. I see you've erased all mention of these facts and replaced them with meta-analysis about theoretical effects of other diet strategies taken out of context (there's media reports of a professor who went on an all twinkie diet, and as a result of his weight loss his cholesterol levels marginally improved, but you wouldn't say "a diet rich in twinkies may help prevent heart disease"), including one that I would consider a straw-man against "low fat diets," and even a claim that consuming dairy products high in saturated fat is an effective way to prevent cardiovascular disease. I can understand Wikipedia's favoring of meta-analysis rather than primary sources in some cases, but can you not agree that the effectiveness of finding truth in a meta-analysis can be hindered by the bias of the authors and by people who post a meta-analysis because its conclusion text sounds positive without actually reading and understanding the analysis or the individual studies involved in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.90.146 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC) We use secondary sources such as meta analysis for a number of reasons. We do not use primary sources to refute secondary sources. If you can find a high quality secondary source that supports the content you wish to add we can than discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC) What do you consider a high-quality secondary source, considering the sources you used to replace the words of the world's top cardiologists? I would argue that simply being a meta-analysis says nothing of its quality, and often times means lower quality because it can imply a cherry-picking of data (especially when industry grants have funded it), and as I said, people tend to look very superficially at the text in the abstract rather than taking the time to read the meta-analysis and the studies within it to assess whether or not the data is relevant and useful, leading to misinterpretations that become harmful suggestions. I would consider something like this a far more valid source of information: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1520-037X.2001.00538.x/pdf An accomplished expert who has, himself, consistently cured heart disease in patients and served on many health advisory boards, referencing populations of people who have extremely low rates of the disease and what they typically eat, other trials of low-fat, plant-based diets that achieved similar results in reversing heart disease, as well as the failure of other diets to produce adequate results (such as the mediterranean diet's ability to slow the progression of atherosclerosis, but not prevent or cure it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.90.146 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC) What would we want as a reference? That would be a position statement from a national or internationally recognized medical organizations. That would be a recent review article from the last 5 years. Or that would be a recent major medical textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC) adiministrators noticeboard dear sir, you have moved two of my comments from ebola west Africa talk page, sir this is your only warning do it again and I will take to the noticeboard as vandalism. have a nice day--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzie10aaaa (talk • contribs) 12:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC) First of all NO COMMENTS were deleted. You can see the dif here [1]. The issue we are facing is new users rather than joining the previous discussion on the topic feel they should simply start new sections about it over and over again. Would recommend per talk page etiquette that you join the already ongoing discussions rather than start new ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Apologies back at you And I carelessly did not include an edit summary, since it was "obvious" to me (as the editor-of-the-moment) why I removed the text— but without an edit summary, you couldn't have known this. So let the apology be mine. KDS4444Talk 12:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Shiftwork: Modafinil You appear to have removed a citation of an Air Force Research Laboratory technical report. I do not understand why you think it is inadequate. The study was conducted by scientists with well over 100 years of combined experience in this kind of research, and the report is in the public domain, available free from the U.S. Defense Technical Information Service, as noted. Not citing useful work like this is a disservice to the reader. Millergonomics (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Please read WP:MEDRS which states that we use secondary sources rather than primary sources. Also typically use sources from the last 5 years. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Modafinil Citing Wikipedia, "These secondary sources ... also have disadvantages: The authors are writing about what other people said happened and cannot use their own experience to correct any errors or omissions. The authors may be unable to see clearly through their own cultural lens, and the result may be that they unconsciously emphasize things important to their cultures and times, while overlooking things important to the actual actors... The encyclopedia article ... also has disadvantages: in relying on the secondary source, the encyclopedia article will repeat, and may accidentally amplify, any distortions or errors in that source. It may also add its own interpretation." These are pretty overwhelming disadvantages. Perhaps Wikipedia editorial policy should take advantage of input from primary sources and simply mark it as such. Perhaps the reader is actually able to discriminate between the advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary sources. I appreciate the clarification. I'll certainly keep in mind these potential distortions as I read Wikipedia articles.