Jump to content

User talk:Doc James

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Presto54 (talk | contribs) at 18:42, 8 October 2011 (→‎Sorry about that: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject
Pharmacology
General information
Project page talk
Manual of Style talk
Reliable sources talk
Popular pages talk
Departments
 → Assessment (Log) talk
 → Research talk
 → Editor outreach talk
How to help
Requested articles (1) / (2)
Cleanup list
Other content
Categorization
Structure diagrams
Photographs
Templates
Workspace
Historical
Resources for editors talk
Participants talk



Recent edit to Lower Spinal Stenosis

Hi James,

I received your message about the edits to the page about LSS and was confused about what the problem with the entry was. References were made to a third-party clinical journal and the entry made no claims or assertions. If you could let me know how it needs to be specifically modified, or if it needs to go in another section, I would appreciate it. I've been doing research on LSS and noticed that this treatment was missing from the article.

Here was the entry for reference:

Interventional Therapy

For patients "who fail conservative therapies and are not surgical candidates due to co-morbid conditions," recent developments in technology, most notably the Mild procedure, have lead to minimally invasive options that do not involve large incisions, the destruction of muscle tissue or prolonged recuperation.[1]

The conclusion of this study revealed that the Mild procedure "appears to be a safe and likely effective option of neurogenic claudication in patients who have failed consecutive therapy and have ligamentum flavum hypertrophy as the primary distinguishing component of stenosis."[1]

Thank you for your feedback!

  1. ^ a b Lingreen R, Grider J (2010). "Retrospective Review of Patient Self-Reported Improvement and Post-Procedure Findings for mild (Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression)". Pain Physician. 13: 555–560. ISSN 13:555-560. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Comment

never mind, I got it :)

Alprazolam

Please take a look there, an editor is determined to change the text to WP:OR and SYN, hard to stop. Does not discuss. 70.137.159.50 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the issue is? Start a discussion on the talk page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Verster et al. say onset of effect within the first week, not 35 minutes. I believe it may take several days until full effect is reached in panic disorder, so the 35 min. are WP:OR and not supported by ref. 70.137.159.50 (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken it to discussion page, it is still reverted, 2 primary sources added to outweigh review article. Editor182 does not discuss, it is 3rr. I give up. 70.137.159.50 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ref Verster et al. copied to talk page, see there. 70.137.159.50 (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give it some time. I will look at it when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fulltext Verster et al., searchable pdf, copied to article as a ref. Found explanation why benefit in panic disorder is also claimed in "first week". They titrate dose upward over several days until sufficient protection against panic attacks is achieved, that takes a few days. So their statement is explained in the context of the treatment algorithm they are using, see also APA guidelines and others. See discussion page alprazolam. 70.137.143.254 (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete EL, and support group info?

A support group link is very beneficial to people with CSF Leaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foolsgold55 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sock accusations

Hi, I am here about your accusations that Doc2 was/is using sock puppets. I took a break from Wikipedia because of these kinds of things going on that were frustrating the heck out of me. I just started in past few days to come back slowly to be told that this accusation has be made. I don't know the back story to this and I don't want to know. What I am trying to do here and at the sock accusation is to get someone to answer me on how anyone could say she was using a sock with this name because of behavioral issues. How does anyone come to any kind of conclusions about someone on behavior issues with one editor having only 1 edit the whole time. What behavior is being compared here to say that Doc 2 is using NYdoc85 as a sock or meat? How on earth did this conclusion even become? I'm sorry if you think I'm attacking, I'm not, but assuming good faith in others is also a policy that I feel has been totally ignored. My apologies if this is coming too hard at you but I hope you understand why this is so wrong to do to someone like this. Doc 2 takes pride in this project and this is amazing to me since she has been under attack since her first day here. She has a temper that needs controlling at times but using any kind of puppet is not in her. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Crohnie. Thanks for getting involved. I have not had any issues with your civility. It was Doc2s comments about my spelling that are not needed. The issue was about half a dozen accounts making the same edit on many different pages within a couple of days with most accounts having few other edits. I am not a check user thus not sure how this conclusion was arrived at. Doc2 was editing against the consensus at WP:ELNO and was reverted by a number of very active editors well versed in policy yet persisted. Than claims support when new editors with no other edits join her. Anyway she just needs to discuss her edits more on the talk page or at WT:MED and keep things content rather than user based. Glad to see you are back.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc James. Doc 2 has a very bad temper and this she is reminded of quite often when she gets into situations like this. Doc 1 also keeps an eye on Doc 2 for other reasons. Doc 2 has been hassled big time by a bad internet bully who finally got indefinitely banned by the community. The things all of has to put up with when it came to SRQ was really bad. My pages and Doc 2 pages are both protected so that we don't have to read the trash this user used to abuse us with. I'm telling you this so that maybe you can understand why she is so defensive and angry so quickly about things. Thanks for your understanding though, happy editing. I hope for a bit more editing here but still not ready to get back in the saddle completely yet. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Wikipedia can unfortunately be a nasty place.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comments posted today to wikipedia Xanax page

Hello Doc James,

Well, as you might have expected, we're replying to you, or more exactly, to the alprazolam talk page, again. We're persistent, but I hope you'll agree, not irrationally so.

We are, perhaps, getting the hang of the editing process. At first today, I put our latest contribution at the top of the "Abuse" section, but then I believe I corrected this by going back into the edit screen and moving our comments to the end of that section.

We find it confusing to read some of the comments in the talk page, maybe because we're not familiar with the way this page works. Hence we've also posted our comments as a PDF at www.barglow.com/WikipediaXanax.pdf.

By the way, we did quite a bit of research on this subject, spending an afternoon at the library of the UC Medical Center in San Francisco.

Thanks,

Raymond Barglow Peter Barglow Rbarglow (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guys To help me out could you provide the single best piece of evidence and the wording you wish this to support in the article? The PMID is useful aswell. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for use of Osteoporosis Image

Dear Dr. Heilman,

I am currently in the process of developing an audio-visual on Osteoporosis for an Osteoporosis symposium being conducted by Takeda, Korea for their brand Evista (raloxifene HCL). I would like to use the image of the osteoporotic lady from Japan (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osteoporosis.JPG) to illustrate the osteoporosis continuum. Please, do let me know if this is acceptable to you and if so what you would like me to add by way of a disclaimer/license byline to the audio-visual where this image appears. Thanks for your time and work.

Best, Kunal Puri A&R, Mumbai (India) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.170.22 (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes no worries feel free to use this image. Attribution of Wikipedia and myself is all I ask. I have been meaning to clean up the background but have not had time.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Will certainly add the credit line to the section featuring the image. Best, Kunal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.169.188 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be happy to send you the cut-out of the image that we've processed as a PNG if you like. I wasn't able to get your email address off this site since I'm not a user but if you drop me a message at kunal@anrweb.com, I'll zip it across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.169.188 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy RfC result

The closing admin has left it to you to complete the image move. I'll do it if you don't want to get involved again, since I'm already up to my neck in it. let me know. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmh649tangas

Hi. Are you aware of this this character? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No and thanks for the heads up. Should not get confused with me.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Continuing education

Hi Doc James,

I don't understand why you are removing the external links. iBioSeminars/iBioMagazine are free online seminars by expert scientists in the field who research that particular topic. This is a free educational resource, is funded by the National Science Foundation and is completely open to the public (similar to Khan academy, which I have also seen cited as a continuing education resource in external links).

Where would you like me to go to petition this? I wish you had asked me to do this before reverting all of the links that have been up there for many months and have allowed people to learn more about a particular topic.

Thanks, Orangutans (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sarah I shall start the discussion here at WT:MED. If there is support I will return the links in questions. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks Doc James. I will add my opinion below your post. I am relatively new to Wikipedia (I have been involved in their Public Policy Initiative, which inspired me to contribute to science topics) so please be patient with my formatting! Best, Orangutans (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Orangutans[reply]
Sounds good. I will make sure to petition next time. My understanding is that the lectures are meant to be open access in the sense that they are freely distributable and there is no copyright or anything preventing their dissemination and use. However I do not know how they can be open source?Orangutans (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Orangutans[reply]
I understand and will inquire as to what type of license they have. Thanks for bringing this all to my attention. I'd like to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Orangutans (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Oranguatans[reply]
Hi Doc James! I was wondering what you thought about the discussion about the EL. It seems people's opinions fall somewhere in the middle. After reading the others opinions, my own opinion is that the links are appropriate on the speakers own Wikipedia pages when the material presented is related to why they have a Wikipedia page in the first place (e.g. Martin Chalfie on Martin Chalfie's page), but that some of the other links I added may not be considered useful by the Wikipedia community. There were a few links that got reverted where I updated an old link to the same site which had been on the page long before I started editing Wikipedia, and I think those should be turned back into active links. I also think that if a person is a Nobel Laureate or NAS member and gives a free talk on their area of expertise that might be considered useful and appropriate as well, but that those links should be added sparingly. What do you think? Will more people weigh in on the discussion? Should I bring this up in another science forum? Orangutans (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuisance Editor Warning

Hi Jmh649,

I was wondering if you would be able to warn a nuisance user that they may be banned, if they continue to vandalise pages. They are an IP editor, but have been making edits since 2008. It is IP address User:77.76.106.46 and recently (7th Oct, 2011) vandalised the Alcohol intoxication page. Please have a look at a small selection of their edits and you'll see what I mean.

If you are not the best person to direct this to, please point me in the right direction.

Thanks

Kind Regards

Mitch

MitchMcM (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. The user has been warned. I have the page on my watch list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to acne treatment

Regarding the reverts, most of the new material presented had references equal to the quality of other material in the section. These references were sourced from other Wikipedia articles which talk about acne treatment, and cover treatments briefly mentioned in the treatment section introduction. I am still unsure as to why this material were reverted.

The few parts with lesser references, were describing the claimed active ingredients of treatments sold by pharmacies. If claims of efficacy were being made, I would understand a revert, but they are not.

Regarding the repositioning of tea tree oil, the evidence quoted for it's effectiveness appears to be as rigorously assessed as that of some of the treatments deemed to be "non-alternative". If so, why is tea tree oil categorised as "alternative"? 59.167.126.21 (talk) 05:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the new content was unreferenced. Others was not supported by review articles. Tea tree oil even though supported by review articles is regarded as "alternative medicine" thus that is how it is labeled. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to not having previously attempted to improve medical articles. I can accept that a higher level of accuracy may be believed to be required of them than articles of other natures. But I'm afraid I don't understand why material deemed to be acceptable in articles about specific treatments is deemed to be unacceptable in an article about the condition being treated. I am also curious to know which global medical board determines which non-prescription preparations are "alternative" and which are not.59.167.126.21 (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pharmaceuticals are a single compound typically ( or a couple ) alt med products contain many thousands/millions. Pharmaceuticals are regulated in many countries alt med products are not. You could ask for further clarification at WT:MED if you wish. Being a pharmaceutical has the benefit of the countries health board (health canada/FDA giving official approval to certain uses). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

Sorry, James, I didn't know that I couldn't do that. I'll desist immediately. I plan to respond to the last round of posts at WP:Med in a day or two and concede that I lost the case on indiscriminate ELs to MedMerits. Presto54 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&oldid=454585471"