User talk:Doc James: Difference between revisions
→yes, the article is about me.: more whining |
|||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
:::::::Tag each of his article in which he has inserted his research? He's created 26 articles and has been warned on his talk page about his COI. Is there a way to extract his references to his own research in these articles? Do you have a magic administrator's tool? He's made over 4000 edits. [[User:Bfpage|Bfpage]] ([[User talk:Bfpage|talk]]) 00:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
:::::::Tag each of his article in which he has inserted his research? He's created 26 articles and has been warned on his talk page about his COI. Is there a way to extract his references to his own research in these articles? Do you have a magic administrator's tool? He's made over 4000 edits. [[User:Bfpage|Bfpage]] ([[User talk:Bfpage|talk]]) 00:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Yes tag each. Other searching for his name no easy way. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 00:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
::::::::Yes tag each. Other searching for his name no easy way. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 00:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Okay, I'll tag them. There is an easy way to find his research, btw. It is time consuming but using the browser to find all the instances of the word "Miller" in the article reveals all his research. It is possible to 'surgically remove' (pun intended) all references to his research - but OH so tedious. I really don't want that job....and I'm not volunteering because it would take weeks to go through each of the 26 articles filled with his research. Can you assign it to someone else? [[User:Bfpage|Bfpage]] ([[User talk:Bfpage|talk]]) 00:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== [[heart failure]] incidence == |
== [[heart failure]] incidence == |
Revision as of 00:21, 10 December 2017
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.
A barnstar for your efforts
Tylenol articleHi, I see that you have been involved at that article. It seems to have been whitewashed and appears to offer medical opinions on use and safety. I added a section expressing some documented concerns. I suspect that PR people amy watch and edit that page at the behest of the company. Thanks!
Bronchiectasis conferencesDoc James, You commented "too spammy". I think otherwise, and value this conference series highly. How about at least a link to disease registries? That would be useful to both patients and researchers, and acceptable to you? Seniorexpat (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Even that IMO deficient page, though, lists a few registries, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_registry#Examples My proposal would be to link to these registries, in which I participate:
Of course, there are rogue patient-fishing websites out there. As a physician you must know that, but you must also know that there is a great need for patients in legitimate clinical trials. Seniorexpat (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Doc James you have sent me a nice message before so I am reaching out to you.I am a professor at Johns Hopkins University. I am now the Director of Biomedical Engineering there. It is a wonderful thing. Is it possible to have the warning on the wiki page for Michael I. Miller removed. It appeared after I added the Directorship myself which was announced July 2017 by the University. Everything on the page is accurate. It currently says it is an advertizement but everything is stated as exactly true. Warm regards and thank-you for doing what you do. I am trying to help my department become modern like Computer Science at Stanford and at Oxford. Mim.cis (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
yes, the article is about me.Mim.cis (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
heart failure incidenceHi Doc James, You would be wise to read the sources before citing them. The Lancet review you have added, while published in 2017, refers to exactly the same old sources than the other papers. The same goes for the wikipedia guidelines you refer to. There is no recent systematic review on heart failure incidence. And in this case, the guidelines recommend that one presents the facts from recent studies within their context, and not blocking wikipedia readers access to recent knowledge as you seem to be keen to do. Kind regards. Help on the monosodium glutamate MSG pageHello, I am sorry to bother you but I am writing because I need some help or advice on the MSG page. We are citing an article incorrectly. Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) say clearly in their abstract that "Because of the absence of proper blinding, and the inconsistency of the findings, we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists between MSG ingestion and headache." We say there is "no good evidence" which is not at all the same. Any evidence published in a peer reviewed article (and not retracted) is "good" evidence. There are several double-blind studies that found a link in the O and N (2016) study, but many did not. Hence, the results are inconsistent and in the opinion of the authors, there is not enough evidence to suggest a link. I am asking for a change from "no good evidence" to "inconsistent findings." I would like to continue saying that "there does not appear to be a link between normal MSG consumption and headaches." I just don't want to inaccurately cite their article. I've even been told the wording has already been agreed on but I never agreed. I am asking for your help to make this page right. Thank you for your time and consideration.FFN001 (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Mister wiki case has been acceptedYou were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
EditingThank you for your note about removing the information I added about MBP. What would be the proper way to add information to a page referencing this book? I have never added to this site before. Thanks.
WikiHistoryLast week I changed a lot in the background program on the server. That large article de:Deutschland which took about 45 minutes before, takes now 7 minutes and a few seconds. I did this, because the engl. WP has a different characteristic than the german, it holds a lot more huge articles with a lot more edits. So filling the database was really slow (compared to german wikipedia). Now I know a lot more about C# (I still do not like that language), about the Wikipedia-API and the way that numbers are computed. Usually I run a test script which compares the output of APPERs original program with the new version before I upload the server program to the toolforge-server, but I did not do this today when I made just a small change (with bad side effects). Sorry for that. About 900 articles showed up that bad numbers, 357 in the engl. Wikipedia, the rest in the german, but they where all fixed about an hour later. --Wurgl (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2017News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).
ArbCom 2017 election voter messageHello, Doc James. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Cardiac Arrest editsHi James, could you please review the intro to the section on "causes"? I wanted to remove: "The arrhythmias that lead to sudden cardiac arrest or death can be a result of cardiac and non-cardiac causes, which includes the following:" It is a sentence (second paragraph in causes) that comes before CAD, but I do not find it clear. I was going to list the causes in this sentence, or remove it entirely. Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Sign versus symptomHi Doc James, You said in a recent reversion on Rett syndrome that symptom is widely used in many parts of the world for both 'sign' and 'symptom'. I notice this is not reflected in the Symptom article neither did you provide any evidence. Just saying. Regards. Richard Avery (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC) hiwould appreciate you opinion here[3] thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
another
Pesticides with bed bugsHi, I saw your revert with quote as I was about to change a lot more in the section. Oddly enough I see the quote when comparing revisions, but not in the wiki article itself. My gripe is with the selective misrepresented/misreading of the sources in this section to make it appear as if insecticide use is not a viable source of management, whereas as I read it, it is the main method used in combination with mechanical treatments, with as second effective treatment sealing of the entire building and heating the entire space for a few hours. The two most used sources here both state problems with both mechanical and chemical treatments. Yet vacuuming, using mattress coverings, or drying is said to be 'effective' in the article, but not in the sources (rather the opposite). If 'effective' is defined as 100% eradication of the pests in all situations all the time then no method is 'truly effective'. As it appears you are on point on this, I will edit what I was going to do more slowly and with more explanation. Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
You've got mail!
SyntheticThis isn't right. I'm pretty sure "manufactured hormone" can be either a natural hormone or a chemical analogue that is manufactured in a lab. Whereas a "synthetic hormone" explicitly refers to chemical analogues like progestins. NickCT (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Accessibility of note 3 in the HMB articleHi James. I was wondering if you thought a layperson could interpret the first sentence in this note, which was written in rather technical language until yesterday. I tried to rewrite it in a manner that a non-statistician could interpret. I didn't try to simplify the 2nd sentence, which is the range for the point estimate (i.e., a 0.352 kg increase in mass) based upon a 5% significance/95% confidence level. My motivation for writing that note was to give someone an idea of the rate at which daily HMB intake increases muscle mass over time, which the meta-analysis didn't explicitly state. One could easily figure that out by dividing the estimated increase in muscle mass by the sample-weighted average duration of the studies from this note (NB: the meta-analysis didn't compute a sample-weighted average duration, I computed that manually): i.e., .352/6 = 0.059 kilograms/month (0.129 pounds/month), which translates to an average increase in muscle mass of 0.71 kg (1.55 pounds) per year. I figured that stating this rate in the article would be construed as WP:OR, so I didn't explicitly state it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The meta-analysis found that the average increase in muscle mass among the participants of the seven studies that was due to HMB supplementation was 0.352 kilograms (0.78 lb).[1] The 95% confidence interval for the estimated increase in muscle mass due to HMB supplementation is 0.110–0.594 kilograms (0.24–1.31 lb).[1] |