User talk:Doc James

We have an offline version of our healthcare content. Download the app and access all this content when there's no Internet. (other languages)

 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. question [1] quick question did you shorten text b/c it was redundant or not accurate[2] Autophagy is mediated by a unique organelle called the autophagosome(5th sentence after abstract) ?thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC) It is accurate. Just shortened. Linked the term. What are your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC) [3]that we may see a spike in that article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Hum yes good point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Removing parasitology from periodontitis Doc James, you are remove everything I add to periodontitis. Is there any way we can show the reality of periodontal infection and curing method? This removing is keeping low knokedge to such a disease. Parasitology is part of periodontitis from 1914 studies. So tell how I do? Also we can cure this disease relatively easily changing the sulcus microbiota! This we know from 1980. So will you only leave AAP no piwer to this disease? Also you say Youtubes if mine are not correct films. Do you want me, or may I place them all on communs and they are more accepted? Really tell me! Thank you! Tdebouches (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC) User:Tdebouches the key is to use sources per WP:MEDRS Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Alkhurma virus Alkhurma virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A new editor want to rename it "Alkhumra virus" (m-r swap) citing some Saudi guy. Also, dumping a huge list of journal cites. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks. Restored to the CDC spelling. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Moving Articles to Main Space Doc James, I appreciate you working with this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kaveh_Alizadeh) to make sure it's the best it can be. I'm curious as to what the next steps are in moving it to the main space, as I asked in late September what I needed to do to square it with you and hadn't heard back. Can you let me know what needs to happen next? This has been a very instructional process for this and future articles. Thanks. Alikouros (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Add WP:AfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:EasyEn Template:EasyEn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC) I can move it to user space. Though it is used a fair bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Followup on Leslie Becker I noticed a request to re-create was posted to your talk page on 3 October 15:05, and the subsequent creation of the page on 3 October 15:41. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Yup some people do not take "no" for an answer. Raises concerns about the creator of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Paul Kruger Hi. You protected the article Paul Kruger for vandalism, however, it is the TFA, so vandalism is normal. If you could reduce the duration it would be better because it won't be an active page once it is off. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Protected until Oct 24th. What are you wanting it changed to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC) The lenght, as two weeks is unnecessarily long (tomorrow it will be off the Main Page). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Okay what do you want it changed to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Regarding an ongoing AfD Hello, James. There's an ongoing AfD which might be of your interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touch-type Read and Spell. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC) There are no review articles on the topic. Not sure if it is really notable for its own page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Yes, it doesn't seem to meet GNG or any topic-specific notability guideline. But the program is widely used, so it may be merged to some article, although I am not sure where to merge it. If you can decide on a merge target then we can easily merge it after discussing at the article's talk page. But if you think it should be deleted then it has to be AfDed again. BTW, thanks for looking at it. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Agree trimming the primary sources and merging would be a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC) re: simple language and syntax Hey doc, thanks for the message and reminder of the style guide. It's always good to refresh oneself with the explicit guidelines WP provides us...I often forget how specific it can get! Preface: Your bio contains the following message: "P.S. My spelling and grammar are poor, so thank you for correcting them." My hope is that I can convince you that the change I made warranted a "thank you" and not an "undo" ;) I definitely understand the importance of making articles accessible, and certainly didn't intend to obfuscate when I changed "not enough" to "inadequate." I reviewed the guidelines on lead sections, and found these relevant bites from the Accessible Overview section: - "[...] avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions." - "[...] avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols." The word choice in question is found in the opening sentence: "Angina, also known as angina pectoris, is the sensation of chest pain, pressure, or squeezing, often due to not enough blood flow to the heart muscle as a result of obstruction or spasm of the coronary arteries." As a native English speaker, the clause "often due to not enough blood flow" immediately strikes me as syntactically clunky. I must admit that I am no linguist, and in fact I wouldn't necessarily argue that this clause is technically grammatically incorrect. Hopefully, though, you can see where I (and other users who have edited the phrase) was coming from when I changed the clause to "often due to inadequate blood flow." Another user chose to use the word insufficient, which is almost identical in meaning and complexity, and similarly solves the problem by eliminating the compound adjective that snags things up somewhat. I agree that "insufficient" and "inadequate" are slightly more complex than "not enough", but I wouldn't agree that they warrant characterization as over-specific or difficult-to-understand rhetoric. As anecdotal as this statement may be, I personally would not hesitate to use these words around someone who speaks English as a second language. Objective measures would provide a more convincing argument though, so I found some. I'd point out first, in order to establish a reference point, that you seem to have no qualms with the use of the word "sensation" in the opening sentence. This is a word with similar complexity and modern prevalence to "inadequate". According to Google Ngram viewer, which tracks the historical and contemporary use of words, "inadequate" is actually used more commonly than "sensation". inadequate: 0.0016% sensation: 0.0014% insufficient: 0.0012% The phrase "not enough"? Well that actually falls below "inadequate" too, with a prevalence of 0.0013%. This actually surprised me, but the data speaks for itself. My final point would be that people speaking English as a second language would probably want be exposed to the language the way it's commonly spoken and written, as opposed to reading unorthodox syntax & word choice that clunks only to offer minimal improvement in accessibility. Anyone struggling with common words like sensation or inadequate also has access to the Simple English Wikipedia. In summary, I contend that "inadequate" is a superior word choice because it improves sentence flow and better represents standard English syntax and vocabulary. My sentiment is corroborated by the fact that other users have tried to make virtually identical changes. I'm interested to hear what you think; I believe I've made my position compelling. By the way, I just wanted to also thank you for your obviously substantial contribution to Wikipedia's healthcare content. Vigilant users such as yourself keep Wikipedia trustworthy.Afw35 (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Would one not want to look at 0.5% for Not And 0.02% for enough? I guess the question is should we change "sensation" to "feeling"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC) I considered that, but opted instead to use the data for the compound phrase because it is a) what was used, and b) more directly relevant to the question of grammar/syntax and ubiquity/prevalence. As a compromise, I made sure to state that I agree "not enough" is simpler language, though I doubt anyone would disagree with that. Feeling seems to be a more common word that conveys the same information. But I guess the question, for me at least, is more about how one determines what constitutes excessively complex language. And further, when and how to compromise between specificity/syntax and simplicity/accessibility.Afw35 (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Changed some of the wording. I try to write the leads in very easy to understand languages and then write the body of the article in more complicated language. Yes I realize that simpler English might now flow as nice as more technical English. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) SEPT9 Without going into the broader paid-editing-motives of the editor, did the edits by Bu11man7 improve the article, even marginally?Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Their work was an attempt to mislead our readers. I followed up with the USPSTF and they said that this company was misrepresenting their position. This is one of the worst kind of cases of undisclosed paid editing (using good sources but purposefully misrepresenting the sources in question for financial benefit). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC) This source probably proves the statement to be minimally true.The line was initially used definitively promotionally.Prob. a better statement would have been:-SEPT9 DNA was listed in the recommended (Grade A) screening tests in the United States Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) Colorectal Cancer Screening (2016) for people aged between 50 to 75 years.The study did not prove it to be any more effective than other tests including .......Is it all or am I still missing something?Am not standing up for him.It's prim. due to an OTRS ticket..Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 07:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Can you share the OTRS ticket. This stuff was not a Grade A recommendation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Check your inbox in a while! Am also appending the rely that I draft-ed! That being said, was the afore-mentioned source (which I accessed while manoeuvring through the original inline-source in the article) wrong?.If there is something that does not meet my eyes, you could choose to use the email-function too! Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Okay so this was what our paid editor added "SEPT9 DNA was listed with the recommended Grade A screening tests in the United States Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) Colorectal Cancer Screening (2016)." Which implies that this test received a grade A recommendation by the USPSTF for colon cancer screening. The USPSTF actually says "Although a serology test to detect methylated SEPT9 DNA was included in the systematic evidence review, this screening method currently has limited evidence evaluating its use (a single published test characteristic study met inclusion criteria, which found it had a sensitivity to detect colorectal cancer of <50%).1 It is therefore not included in this table."[4] Concerning to say the least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Check your email.Send the message.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) No need to reply to my 2nd email(about the reason about why it's false).Got the clue:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC) So, basically this publication is an updated version of this report.Cheers:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC) This[5] is the official source yes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC) A barnstar for your efforts Scholarly Barnstar Awarded to Doc James for efforts in replacing lesser quality citations with high-quality academic citations. Awarded on 13 October 2017 by Cdjp1. Gaurav Kotli I saw you deleted Gaurav Kotli via A7. An older version of the article cited some Hindi newspapers that were removed. I can't read Hindi and can't tell just how useful they are; I just wonder whether you were aware that some news coverage may exist when you deleted the page? Huon (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC) It was nominated for deletion using Template:db-band. I supported the concerns and thus deleted it. This was the source [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Apparent socking on Circumcision VoHRA (talk · contribs) Sdm215 (talk · contribs) I'm most likely involved there, so I would appreciate if you could perhaps take a look. Thanks, GABgab 00:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC) User:GeneralizationsAreBad yup made the exact required numbers of edits and than waiting the correct number of days. Not their firsts accounts. Did you post to SPI? I have the page watchlisted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Yeah there's definitely something fishy going on there. Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC) I filled an SPI for what it is worth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC) I'm really sorry, but when I saw this header pop up on my watchlist I couldn't help but think of this. 15:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Referencing for cholecalciferol Thanks for pointing out to me that NICE and BNF are not always readable in different parts of the world. However you have reverted to non-electronic links which are also unreadable to all online. We have been using multiple different sources to standard prescribing details, so I will trim these to use www.drugs.com. Also you reverted my change to put the physiology of this natural agent before its use as a medicine. For other hormones, we have the physiology first -- see thyroxine, estrogen, insulin for example. In general, the emphasis with vitamin D and its forms is too heavily weighted on supplement use. Jrfw51 (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Mechanism of action, biosynthesis, and industrial production are not "physiologcial effects". Therefore reverted to how it was. The other problem with the BNF-NICE is that it does not state the version of the BNF. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Mechanism of action of the prohormone and biosynthesis are broadly physiological. Please do not lose other improvements with rapid reversions. Jrfw51 (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Sure I will manually move back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC) You have lost a lot of the 'improvements' I made. Quoted references like 2 and 4 are inaccessible and add nothing to 5, which is widely available. It is still written as if is is only a drug/supplement. It is a natural biochemical -- just like thyroxine, or estrogen. You have not addressed the style differences with these. No more now as you clearly feel ownership of this article. Costa Rica! Jrfw51 (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC) We put biosynthesis generally low in the article and the same with mechanism of action. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Not so for thyroxine or estrogen. These are similar compounds. Jrfw51 (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Have changed those pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Link_:_tranquilizers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antipsychotic#Link_:_tranquilizers 1a16additional (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Except when it is within the bolded initial terms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Holger Jens Schünemann Hi Doc James, thanks for that work on the above. I think it was probably needed, and better for it. Why would you think it is a paid article? To be honest, I haven't seen that udp tag before. I checked Google Scholar, and the guy has a 66k citations, an immense number, before I passed it out of WP:AFC. I thought he was well passed the threshold of acceptance. It didn't look like a paid for article, although I am more used to dealing with bankers and entrepreneurs and they tend to be easily recognized for what they are. scope_creep (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC) User:Scope creep Unreferenced personal details "Schünemann is married to the Italian scientist Paola Muti, and has two daughters." Gratuitous puffery "Maintaining an active clinical practice in internal medicine fulfills his passion for patient care and ensures his research is people-focused. " Early history is unreffed / reads like a CV "Schünemann began his research career in respiratory and exercise physiology as a medical student in the Department of Physiology at the Medical School of Hannover, Germany. " Account which created the article did so in one edit[7] Person who wrote it says they work for his publisher[8][9] Agree they are notable, just needs someone independent to clean up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC) YGM Take a peek at your inbox:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Antipsychotic https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antipsychotic&diff=prev&oldid=805305996 1a16additional (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC) re-added material from the debate at editorial line 12:01, 14 October 2017‎ (commencing at edit 03:43, 14 October 2017‎ , of material added 21:44, 12 October 2017‎) as there are additional sources indicating, copyedited two sentences) 1a16additional (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Antipsychotic 1a16additional (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Your edit makes the first sentence way overly complex. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Well, I think the response would be, for anyone outside of the field of medicine - the subject is complex, and for the minds of doctors the subject does not seem as complex - so that the complexity you are perceiving is others perception of complexity - since non-medical professionals - have not had medical educations, and the encyclopedia - is for everyone 1a16additional (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1a16additional/sandbox#anti-psychotic 1a16additional (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)