This is a Wikipediauser 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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 see this article from Medscape [1]. I suspect the Diet section needs to be slightly modified to say that the old view of chocolate (viz. that it is unrelated to acne exacerbations) was based on a 1969 study funded by the chocolate industry (as reported by the BBC) and may not be correct. MLPainless (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already mention this in that it is sweet and can contain milk. Medscape and the BBC are not really suitable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than that. Quite apart from the fact that Block's study used pure cocoa powder in capsules (or gelatine for the placebo) and was reported in major news media worldwide and is now discussed on most major medical sites, e.g. here at WebMD, there is now another very recent (2013) study in the journal Cytokine (discussed here in full& here) showing the relationship between chocolate and acne from a cytokine modulation perspective, and once again suggesting that there is a relationship between chocolate and acne because chocolate may influence antimicrobial host defences. These effects were not noted for milk and sugar on their own, AFAIK. MLPainless (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this article that looked at cytokine production in cell culture? Would be easy to do a large human study. I still see no definitive evidence. This 2012 review still says no evidence PMID:23062156 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that WP is supposed to follow and not lead, but do we have to follow so far behind? ? ;¬) Review studies are often few and far between. MLPainless (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The popular press is so often wrong as is much newly published small research trials. Thus to prevent so much wrongness from getting into Wikipedia we hold back a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Pity, because I think we'll have to wait many a year to see another review in this area. What about noting in the text that the "seminal" study that set for tone for all that followed, including the review study you're relying on, was funded by the Chocolate Manufacturers' Association of the United States of America (now called the National Confectioners Association)? MLPainless (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the funding factoid is sourced to the news (BBC, and other sites). The fact that the key chocolate-exonerating study was funded by chocolate manufacturers is just the sort of tidbit a good encyclopedia should contain ... at least IMO. MLPainless (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In medicine you need to show evidence of an association before we state there is an association. Thus we state "Other associations such as chocolate and salt are not supported by the evidence" The issue is that one needs to control for milk and sugar consumption before one can say cocoa is the cause. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ref in question was not blinded, had no control group, involved 10 people and it appears that they stopped their usually acne medication "Subjects consumed a maximum of 340 g (12 oz, or three standard 4-oz chocolate bars) of chocolate at baseline under the investigator’s supervision and maintained a regular diet for 1 week. Volunteers had no over the counter or prescribed medications for 2 weeks."[2] They had more than one comparitor yet still are trying to use a p of 0.05 "A statistically significant increase in the mean number of total acneiform lesions (comedones, papules, and pustules) was detected on both days 4 (P = .031) and 7 (P = .050) compared to baseline." This is wrong. One needs to use lower p values with more than one primary end pointy. Conclusions one can draw are none. Feel free to ask for further opinions but we do not use popular press or poor quality primary research studies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I was merely recommending that the industry's involvement in the initial key study be noted in the text. It's a non-controversial fact, after all. BTW, there is a brand new review study on chocolate, [3] noting its link to acid reflux. Is that in the article? MLPainless (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jmh649,
You undid my addition stating the information was not notable and asking for an independent source. Please explain why my source lacks independence. As for notability, I also disagree: this is a Reception section, and the information I added does show how EFT is being received/viewed by some therapists. Within the context of the section - where information shown is all negative regarding EFT, a positive reception by any group seems to me quite out of the ordinary.
Thanks,
Margarida Silva
Mmmcsilva (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but why is it not suitable? It does show that a group of therapists considers EFT valuable enough to have their members listen to a talk on the subject. Isn't this precisely the point in this section? Why does this source lack independence?
Thanks,
Margarida Silva
(And no, I didn't receive any other comments, if that's what you're asking.)
Mmmcsilva (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question I asked was has a secondary source comment that "this conference included a talk on this subject". This would be considered a primary source and thus not suitable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm totally new to this and hence all the questioning. I understand as regards research that secondary sources are used over primary sources (at least in some cases). But why does a primary source like this one not constitute a good source since it's not science we're talking about here? The document does show one factual item: the group did include a talk on EFT. You don't need anyone else saying it to make it any truer. So I still don't get why it isn't a suitable source.
Thanks,
Margarida Silva
Mmmcsilva (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But it isn't the only way, am I correct? Across Wikipedia there are many primary sources being used. And this isn't even research, as I mentioned. So, I'm re-asking: the information presented by the source I used is relevant by itself and really not subjective, so why can't it be used? Notability, within the context of this particular page on EFT, is totally self-evident.
Margarida Silva
Mmmcsilva (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask for an outside opinion on the talk page. Just because they talked about it does not mean it was an endorsement. The issue is that it was presented as such and with the source in question it is impossible to determine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear James,
That's really quite an extraordinary claim. There are many different types of endorsements, and for many different purposes. Which one are you alluding to? Wouldn't you think that it's safe to say that the group endorses EFT at least to the point of thinking this therapy is interesting enough that its members would benefit from listening to a talk on it? I'd say that otherwise they wouldn't have included it on the program, considering this is a staff development training forum. So I'm betting it is not impossible to determine a certain level of endorsement, and that's all my original text implied. I didn't even include a quote from the program which could be construed as a huge endorsement: "This is a tool that should be in everyone’s “toolbox”!", they say.
Thanks!
Margarida Silva
Mmmcsilva (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. These sorts of talks represent one persons point of view. It is not peer reviewed. It is not published. I have never seen this type of info added to a page dealing with another treatment using this type of ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the talk represents one person's point of view. It's the decision - by the organizers - to include a talk on this particular topic that says the subject is interesting - in their view - to therapists. The peer review and the publication are non-issues, since we're talking about reception and not about research. Let's not get things mixed up! In this case the organizers thought EFT was interesting enough for their staff development objectives that they included one talk on it. And THIS is what I want to to convey, because I see it as relevant for this section. Not the content of the talk itself.
Agree? It seems really quite obvious.
Margarida
Mmmcsilva (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to ask the opinion of other Wikipedians. I disagree with the inclusion. You can try a WP:RfC if you wish wider discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James is right, Margarida. Very few conference presentations are worthy of inclusion as sources. This one in particular shows no evidence of editorial input, indeed the "committee" seems to include people who are rather closely related to the presenters. We would have to treat it as a primary source, bordering on self-published. We don't really want either of those characteristics.LeadSongDogcome howl!21:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear LSD,
Thanks for adding your comment to my discussion with James at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#EFT_edit_revert
I'm not arguing for the content of a conference presentations to be used as a source. If you read the thread fully I think you'll find that what I defend is that a sentence be included stating that this particular association included a talk on EFT at a staff development forum. This is a indication of how EFT is being received by one particular sector of society which, I believe, is precisely the idea in this section on Reception. Or am I getting it wrong?
Thanks,
Margarida
Problem is that without a secondary source indicating that the fact that it was included is relevant, we cannot know. We do not know if the conference was notable, if the association is really notable, or if the association considered the talk notable (and no, just the fact that it appears in the conference does not mean the association considered it notable, there are maaaaaaaaaaaaany talks in maaaaaaaaaaany conferences that have nothing notable and even if the conference is considered formative for an association or body the content of a specific talk is simply crap, not really endorsed by organizers). --Garrondo (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gene Wiki bot
sorry, just have time for a brief reply to your question. We maintain our bot code in this code repository. We have it configured to run once every two days under User:ProteinBoxBot. Happy to answer any other questions you might have. Thanks for the helpful thoughts! Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not a problem. And if you have the chance to take pictureS of interesting cases upload them here. Drop me a note if you need help. Also you should get involved with contributing to Wikipedia, and convince your class to do the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for backing me up RE pulmonary embolism echo/ecg!
I'm new to wikipedia and noticed the content was in the wrong spot. So I thought I'd do a quick change and that guy wasn't happy about it... Not sure why! Thanks. 94.193.2.50 (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out your latest changes, look good. I did some small copyediting, little stuff that would have taken longer to explain to you what needed to be done than for me to just make the change. There's a few requests for clarification and a request to add a bit about home remedies, especially aloe - I think a lot of readers might be pulling up the article and want to know whether aloe works. Everything else looks good. Once these last few bits are done it'll pass as GA. Zad6819:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, so close now. One more thing - the aloe addition was good but now the article is a little self-contradictory with aloe vs. SSD. Article now says that aloe might work, but not any better than SSD, which is not recommended. Pls sort that out, should be it. Zad6814:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes excellent point :-) That is the medical literature for you. It might work but than again it also might not work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had relatively little to do with the event. I presented an hour or so of "how to", to the entire group; I reviewed some drafts of what other people were planning and offered suggestions (I think - it's been almost 4 years); and, as you noted, I recruited some Wikipedians to help with the small group sessions where NIH staff did some learning.
What I didn't do was interact, at all, with NIH. So I can't say what their level of interest was following the meeting. There seems to be some information about that [4] and here here. But I never heard further that the NIH wanted more hands-on instruction, nor were there any further events at NIH that I know of. Perhaps Frank or others who were directly involved with the NIH can answer your question.
I will note that, as is all too common, we (the Wikimedia/Wikipedia team) underestimated the difficulty of doing "Wikipedia editing in a nutshell" - that is, of fitting meaningful information and instruction into a very short amount of time. Perhaps if/when the VisualEditor goes live, this won't be so much of an issue. -- John Broughton(♫♫)01:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the elimination of the image. Reasons you stated were two-fold:
1-Only 18 subjects in source. This might be valid if it were to use it as a source of content, but it is not. We are not using as a primary source in this sense, but as graphic example of something stated in a secondary source (Braak staging) that has received much more proof than this specific plos article. We could in this sense simply use the top half of the image (which a schema of braak staging) e, but IMO the voxel based morphometry analysis has further value as an example since it is a real one.
2-Blurriness: This is a faulty critique probably from a lack of knowleadge on how voxel based morphometry is performed. In VBM subjects are normalized to a template (usually the Montreal Neurological Istitute) which comes from the mean of aroudn a 100 individual brains. The intensity of the signal in each brain voxel is compared between the group of controls and patients. If there are significant voxels they are usually superimposed on a template for visualization. Such normalization template is by itself blurry since it indicates the probability of a structure being a structure. Since some people do not like it per blurriness what they do is to superimpose results to a normal brain that is similar to the mean values of this template, however this brain is as false as the blurry one (or even more, since it is not the true template into which images in the analyisis have been normalized). Botton line: the image is technically perfect as it is.
I am going to copy this discussion into talk page so we can continue discussion there. Regarding all your other edits, they seem great
Okay no strong feeling either way. Article needs a bit of updating before translation so will keep working on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I do not have time to improve this article, specially since I am heavy-reviewing the Multiple sclerosis one, but since I was the main author, you can ask for help if you need something. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Doc, I would like to start a brief dialogue w/ you. What is on my mind ... I do not know the complete backstory of User:Fladrif's block, or his edit history. However, I have read several of his edits, that others have claimed are blatant personal attacks (PAs), and I had to laugh, because well, it was absurd. (No personal attacks that I could find, or, exaggerated characterization on some mild incivilities.) From what I've read (again, not so much), I gather that you understand and/or agree what I'm saying/have observed. (I guess then my Q is, how do you interpret others', Admins', claims of gross incivility and personal attacks by User:Fladrif when, what they cite is, for lack of a more appropriate word, BS?) Thanks for your comment. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. Is it more "mob rule" stuff, and Admin hostility, that I've observed many times on the Wiki? Or Fladrif has bad blood going back to edit histories I have not read, so any scrap of anything now is being used manipulatively against him to satisfy agendas? Or? Thanks for your insight. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, this is very interesting: "Fladrif's past history weighed heavily in my original block decision. In my opinion nothing has changed in Fladrif's editing style since the arbitration declaration. That is the primary reason I chose the "indef" option in my block." Ched : ? 01:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC). Because I'm not aware of anything in policy, that warrants blocks based on "editing style" and "past history". (That seems to me, as a new-ish WP editor, grist for WP:RfC/U.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really clear on the back story myself. Fladrif however appears to have pissed off User:Rlevse/User:PumpkinSky during their RfA after returning as a new editor Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PumpkinSky. User:Ched and Rlevse are friends, he being one of the nominators of Pumpkins RfA. There was also other involvement between Ched and Fladrif. I still consider this action by Ched to be misuse of admin tools but was overruled by others who weighted in. When Rlevse came back as Pumpkin they pretended that they were a new editor and proceeded to berate another Wikipedia here. Does not excuse Fladrif though and agree that he should watch his language. Block was out of proportion for the event. These comment from another connected editor [5] and [6] only got him blocked for a week. And this is with a long history of similar issues which continue now. Simply put different editors are held to different standards. Some of Wikipedia unfortunately depends on how many "friends" you have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to you ASAP Doc., and thanks for pinging me. I have a few questions, and I appreciate your courtesy in notifying me. — Ched : ? 18:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) Ihardlythinkso, do you go around everywhere with this topic? In addition to what I responded to your question on my talk, compare what I saw to the overly simple Fladrif equation "PumpkinSky/BarkingMoon/Vanished User/Rlevse" (in the RfA, link on my user if you need it). - That Dreadstar left because of Fladrif has nothing to do with the PumpkinSky RfA. - Do you get involved with someone automatically if your friend is? - Ched did something unusual and bold, something that "the community" wanted, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not the only interaction between Ched and Flad. Further interactions here [7], [8], and [9] among others. Agree with you that this was an unusual action. Fladrif's talk page however is still open and if he was interested in defending him self he could. Would /could Fladrif change his behavior? Not sure. WRT "That Dreadstar left because of Fladrif" to clarify he left for exactly 9 days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to be clear that there was community support and consensus for Ched's block of Fladrif. I don't know that I agreed with the block, myself, but that doesn't change the fact that it was supported by the community. There's no case to be made that Ched misused his admin tools - he made a block, the block was scrutinized by the community, and it was supported by consensus, which is pretty much the end of the story. Dreadstar's latest melodramatic pseudo-retirement reflects poorly on Dreadstar, but beyond that I'm not sure of its relevance. MastCellTalk00:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Errors
Those are errors, editing an old version of the page when I meant to remove someone's self-promotional links from the articles. I suppose I should thank you for saving me some trouble by fixing those yourself instead of giving me a chance to fix my own mistakes. Doczilla@SUPERHEROLOGIST07:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You dealt with him before? I'm not surprised. Several people have been reverting his recent edits, of which there are many. As far as I can see, he has not made a single non-promotional edit. I can't believe his self-created, autobiographical Wikipedia article about himself survived AfD. It really needs to go. Doczilla@SUPERHEROLOGIST07:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:Ossip_Groth#WIKI_GATA actually running. System is more versatile and nothing has to be upped, only, people have to manage to know about it. Thanks for overall consideration and site critique. My sites could probably enhance wikipedia, but wikipedia definitly enhances my sites. My idea of a complementing symbiosis is current, but I will not priorize my limited personal resources into getting support.
--Ossip Groth (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I was eavesdropping on the message you left for Tim Vickers about the NIH meeting. Just FYI, our Gene Wiki project at the intersection of Wikipedia and human genes is NIH-funded (by NIGMS). Although I'm biased, I think the project's been quite successful for both gathering community contributions and then text mining from the wikipedia pages (e.g., [11]). Anyway, if any of this would be interesting to you or your NIH audience, feel free to get in touch. I have plenty of slides I could share as well... Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why a self published book is not a good source as a reference. My book on the Yom Kipur War documents events no one else ever did. This includes evacuation of wounded soldiers, triage, PTSD.
I have published a review medical article on the Six Days and Yom Kippur Wars in Military Medicine.
Brook, I. Calm under pressure and fear under fire: personal experience of a medical officer.
Mil Med.;166(12 Suppl):61-2. 2001.
The ref in question is not listed as a review article by pubmed [12] but is rather a collection of personal experiences. Here is the definition of review we are going by [13]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your message regarding forest preservation.
Sir,
I have been interested in preservation of forest since last 30 years.All my medical knowledge came from books I read of gerat authors from developed country like yours. And my obesevations deducted from that knowledge. I have noted that wise people are there to decide the further course of action on my artcles. I think that I am correct in my article regarding forest. Due to Wikipedia I could came in contact with modern world and wise people like you are the best judge to accept it or not. I never thought that I will get an oportunity to write some thing like that and so I never concentrated on language part of English. My English is British english and I learned my This thing I made clear to my Supervisor in the begining only.
Regards.
Welcome. One must link to the source they are referencing. Here are the guidelines for references WP:MEDRS. Wondering if you would be interested in helping with improving medical content in your own language? We are working on efforts here [14]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heading
Doc James, I echo the sentiment that this was inappropriate. If Littleolive oil insists on posting against your will, a block would be appropriate, but it would never be appropriate for you to issue the block, as your statement suggested you would. I know you haven't actually used your tools, but still, if you were to clarify that you won't block, it would put you clearly in the right on admin status and lessen the drama. Heimstern Läufer(talk)03:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks clarified. These three editors have been at me for some time. I have request that all three not post on my talk page in an effort to reduce further drama.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proper attribution for inter-wikipedia copy and paste
You will notice in the very first edit summary of history of leprosy the comment "moved from main Leprosy article to create this as a subarticle" and in the very first edit of the epidemiology page "moved from main page" Yes could have probably been more clear in the later one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your most recent note - its nice to know my Wikifriends are thinking of me. I've not been around because I've been working 6 to 7 days per week at my primary job, and in my spare [sic] time, have been collaborating with numerous individuals and entities on founding a new lung cancer research institute at Missouri Western State University.
This institute has been a dream of mine for nearly 30 years, and as of yesterday, it looks like it will finally become a reality this fall. Well, let me just say that the probability is about 98% that it will be realized, anyway. One never knows until it actually *happens*, particularly given the fact that I had a couple of heart attacks in the past 5 months, right out of the clear blue sky (lol). With MY luck, I will probably keel over dead of a massive MI just as I cut the ribbon at the Grand Opening :-O
Anyway, I plan on involving students, interns, researchers, and proofessors in making contributions to Wikipedia to some extent as an integral part of the activities of the institute. I am a HUGE FAN of Wikipedia, and consider it to be (if not now, soon) perhaps the single most important tool in the education of individuals extant.
With that said, I am also ACUTELY aware of the problems and challenges that the student/Wikipedia relationship can involve, and of course would work closely with you and/or others with expertise long before anyone ever did anything in that regard.
In closing, thanks again for your note (and your friendship). While time constraints will likely prevent me from doing much Wiki-ing for the next few months, I will be around. Maybe sometime in the next 30-60 days we can talk by phone and discuss some stuff. Hoping this message finds you and your family doing well, I remain
Your friend and Wikifan:
Cliff ("Uploadvirus")
Hey Cliff Sounds excellent. Let me know what I can do to help. If the students becoming involved are properly motivated, instructed and supervised than it can work. Sorry to hear about your health problems and hope that you are on the mend. Drop me an email and I will send you my number if you do not have it already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
prevention vs precautions
I was about to change "prevention" to "precautions" when I found that you had arbitralily deleted several hours of my work. Surely you cannot object to advising breast cancer patients to avoid mutagens. The references were impeccable. Did you read or view them? Wikifrieden (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit unclear about the reversion, WP:Also just says SA has to be relevant, nothing about recommendation, where does this originate from? Ranze (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Doc, according to File:Studying1.jpg it looks like you uploaded it and tagged it with an OK license but then I saw that you made this at Talk:ADHD saying the license may not be OK. I had OK'd the image as part of my GA review but now I'm not sure, what's the story? Was the image tagged with a license inappropriately? If so we need to fix. Zad6815:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes good point. I am not sure if it was originally CC BY SA and then recently changed to CC BY NC. Will email the person in question Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as I look into things further. It appears that many images from .gov sites are not public domain but clip art they have just got the license for single use for. I oppose the use of the brain scan as the cause is unknown and thus the image is a little too POV. No one is diagnosed with a brain scan. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commented and proposed merge. The exact term IMO is less important than the mergers themselves. Will do it if there is support in a couple of days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The illusory third level of review
I would like to use text books, because an old professor probably wrote them. Since I am into this subject so deeply, I might even go to my University bookstore and spring for whatever iz being recommended for biochemistry. Thanks. Learning the difference between a wall-sit and a couch-sit iz the first step to a good workout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.123.237 (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Bupropion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
^Rubinstein, MH (1976 Dec). "A new granulation method for compressed tablets [proceedings]". The Journal of pharmacy and pharmacology. 28 Suppl: 67P. PMID12345. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
