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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.
Cochrane Collaboration meeting in Vienna, October 1st
Hi Doc James,
I 've heard you might be able to visit the Cochrane Collaboration meeting in Vienna. Somebody (User:FloNight?) reserved some time for a wikipedian pre-colloquium [1]. We've skyped with FloNight about this recently, and several people would like to attend, but we need some details. Are you, or ia FloNight planning to give a speech, a workshop, or anything else? Do you want us to prepare something? What will be our objective? Please answer on our wikiproject's subpage, English is OK. - Or, if I'm completely wrong, please forward this to whom it may concern. Regards, --MBq (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will follow your advice/guidance on med articles, though in cases outside your bailiwick, I may still slip in alternate ordering—in particular when the appearing references are uniformly bad, and the Further reading is serving as a basis for properly formatted, well-chosen and well-formatted future article sources. As a waypoint, an analogy (if you sail). Cheers. LeP. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ADHD
Hi James, I left a reply for you on my talk page. I don't know if you see those automatically so I am noting it here. Thanks! Ehaugsjaa (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Doc James,
I suffer from congenital adrenal hyperplasia and one of the main symptoms I have when my cortisol levels are too low is hypoglycemia. During an adrenal crisis one suffers from seriously low blood sugar and also eleoctrolyte imbalances (low sodium/high potassium). In this article you have mentioned very briefly that cortisol should be checked in patients presenting with hypoglycemia but you never state explicitly anywhere that one of the causes of hypoglycemia could be Addison's disease, or other types of adrenal insufficiency - I think this is a serious oversight that should really be corrected. It is such a problem that often, those of us with Adrenal insufficiency who go to the emergency room because we are having a crisis get brushed off, or accused of being on drugs or alcoholics because even medical professionals don't think that it could be low cortisol - even if we are wearing medical jewelry stating that we have adrenal insufficiency. A friend of mine changed hers to read "Give Solu-cortef or watch me die" because she was left vomiting on an ER floor for 3 hours having an adrenal crisis. Please do what you can to help people be aware of this serious condition by including it where relevant in your wikipedia entries!
Thank you for your time,
Lahoma J. Howard, M.A.
PhD student/Instructor of Sociology - Colorado State University
75.70.67.202 (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
user:Doc James how do I know where the content was moved from for this edit [2]? Is there a way to track that? The edit history simply says "moving." How is the original wiki attributed in this case (move versus copy) and does it need to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas559 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Clubjustin4. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Night terror without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Clubjustin (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they seem to have a misconfigured domain server - I was getting NXDOMAIN errors for a while but now it's resolving to a bad IP address. (130.14.29.110 rather than 130.14.29.109). They'll probably have it up in a bit. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
German pilot study for Roscovitine's effects on Glioblastoma cell lines
Hello Sir,
I was wondering if you've seen the Roscotivine abstact published July 3 by Spadidos Publications. It's a European pilot study which appears to have seen some sucess. I can send you a link to the article if you'd like. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
Please let me know if I can email or direct message (Twitter) the link to you.
I believe you are in error. I did not add copyrighted material. My article that was published in the American Journal of Public Health is copyrighted, but the reference to the journal article is not copyrighted per se. The correction I made was to the entry for Impacted Wisdom Teeth. The reference No. 8 lists my last name and the title of the article but it does not list the name and issue of the journal, which is standard for such references. There was no copyright violation in my entry.
Reference no 8 should read: Friedman JW "The prophylactic extraction of third molars: a public health hazard." Am J Public Health 2007;97(9):1554-1559.
Jay W Friedman Jay W Friedman (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say oral medicine or whatever it may be called in the country in question, but that is my perspective. Historically there was no oral medicine or oral and maxillofacial surgery so ENT did a lot besides. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Doc - a BLP isn't a journal entry. It's a biography. Why do you want it to read like a science paper? It's one thing to create dry scientific articles about drugs and such, but this is a BLP. FA criteria clearly states: "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" That doesn't mean dry and scientific. Your addition of the template with an edit summary that reads, "this article has serious issues" isn't very helpful. Why don't you point out the issues instead of templating a GA article? Your the medical professional or is there a reason you are refraining from editing and trying to improve this BLP? Atsme📞📧17:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This research [6] is actually quite promising for extrinsically motivated editors. I was under a bleaker impression of their quality and copyvio issues. --Lucas559 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You made some recent edits reverting compromise changes I made to the use of "cholangitis" or "PBC" rather than "cirrhosis". I had previously reverted much more major changes and established a section on the Talk:Primary_biliary_cirrhosis page to discuss this renaming. The patient groups have won almost universal support for this change in name which have been referenced. As I understand it, there will soon be publications in the scientific literature supporting this and will cite these when it has occurred. Thanks for watching these pages and please feel free to contribute to the Talk page! Jrfw51 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems very appropriate. Let's wait until there has been a change published in the wider literature and then consider further edits to the name. Thanks again.Jrfw51 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now created an entry for the UK charity PBC Foundation to help link to patient issues and the name change initiative. This overcomes the External Links issue. Please review it if you have time with all your other activities and let us know how it can be improved. Thanks. Jrfw51 (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Review
Dear Doc James, I've again reviewed the vitamin D and cancer topic in
Wikipedia and found that the section still remains somewhat scant. The
first reference is to a popular press article about sales of vitamins in
general. The remainder seems to trivialize the 35 years or so of active
scientific research in this topic area. Rather than citing any original
articles, it relies on a single tendentious review. Since students use
Wikipedia to learn about the progression of scientific investigations as
well as the latest findings on a topic, I wondered if we might consider
rewriting this section together to reflect both the historical advancements
in the understanding of vitamin D and cancer, as well as results of the
latest laboratory, observational, and large cohort studies. I would like to
suggest that we set-up an editorial board of subject matter experts who
would then together revise this section. We would then submit a final draft
to you as the Wikipedia editor. I have several colleagues listed below that
I think would likely be very interested and willing to undertake this
project. If you are amendable to this suggestion, please respond to my
office email. We can then begin circulating revisions to this section. Many
thanks. Very respectfully, Ed
Edward Gorham, MPH, PhD
Adjunct Professor
Department of Family Medicine and Public Health
School of Medicine
University of California, San Diego
(619) 990-3848
Email: edward.d.gorham2.civ@mail.mil
Dr UVB (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed subject matter experts:
University of California Riverside
Anthony W. Norman, Ph.D.
University of California San Diego
Cedric F. Garland, Dr. P.H.
Boston University School of Medicine
Michael F. Holick, Ph.D., M.D.
Creighton University
Robert P. Heaney, M.D.
Joan M. Lappe, Ph.D., R.N.
Harvard School of Public Health
Edward Giovannucci, M.D., ScD.
Linus Pauling Institute
Adrian F. Gombart, Ph.D.
Medical University of Graz, Austria
Stefan Pilz, M.D.
Medical University of South Carolina
Bruce W. Hollis, Ph.D.
Carol L. Wagner, M.D.
Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Donald L. Trump, M.D.
University of Auckland
Robert Scragg, M.D., Ph.D.
University of Saskatchewan
Susan J. Whiting, Ph.D.
University of Toronto, Mt Sinai Hospital
Reinhold Vieth, Ph.D.
Vienna Medical University
Heidi S. Cross, Ph.D.
Agree these reviews are a reasonable standard, but there could be much more added reviewing associations between vitamin D and colorectal, prostate, breast and other cancers. Is there any support for a separate, more detailed entry on "Vitamin D and cancer"? Jrfw51 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original message is in some ways wonderful. It would be great to get this kind of academic firepower behind articles. However, there is so much hype around nutrients and risk of getting cancer and the possibility of preventing cancer in the media and the literature, but in my view, in terms of actual medical knowledge there is almost nothing to say. The SELECT trial taught us all that the even the most solid-seeming hypotheses about nutrients and cancer turn out to be not only wrong, but 180 degrees wrong. I think the WEIGHT we give the topic of "Vitamin D and cancer" is perfect. Would be amazing if we could get this kind of effort around well-established topics like Hypertension and especially all our psych articles. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jytdog and Jrfw51, Site specific cancer studies would, in my view, be an important addition to this section. Many dietary and serum studies have been carried out for both colon (1) and breast cancer (2), and for cancers of other sites. Nested case-control serum studies have certain advantages over dietary studies of vitamin D since it doesn't matter whether the vitamin D is dietary or sun-derived. 25(OH)D is relatively stable and an optimal biomarker for vitamin D status. Results from large cohort studies should not be discounted, such as the prospective EPIC study of serum 25 (OH)D and colon cancer in countries across Europe (1). These are important primary sources, and deserve their own citation. In vitro cell studies of antineoplastic effects of 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)D in several tumor lines should at least be mentioned. These potent vitamin D metabolites act as hormones and influence tight junctions between cells, promote apoptosis, and down-regulate oncogenes. Vitamin D is not simply another nutrient when it comes to cancer. The review of supplement sales is overly broad, not particularly relevant to this section, and should be considered for deletion. The role of most nutrients in disease causation has been contentious since they were first identified (3). This should not discourage us from their study or fair reporting of results of these investigations. Very respectfully, Professor Gorham
1) Jenab M, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Ferrari P, van Duijnhoven FJ, Norat T, Pischon T, Jansen EH, et al. Association between pre-diagnostic circulating vitamin D concentration and risk of colorectal cancer in European populations: a nested case–control study. BMJ 340:b5500, 2011. PMID 20093284
2) Abbas S, Linseisen J, Slanger T, Kropp S, Mutschelknauss EJ, Flesch-Janys D, Chang-Claude J. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of post-menopausal breast cancer: results of a large case-control study. Carcinogenesis. 2008;29:93–9 PMID 17974532
I added PMIDs to the 1st 2 refs and fleshed out the 3rd. Thanks for replying. I agree that the science is important (there are so, so many things that we still need to understand better in terms of human biology in health and disease). But it seems to me that the argument you are trying to make is that the two big studies you cite - that show correlation only - are somehow important for health. We can show studies like that all day, and in vitro studies showing mechanisms too, but nobody has ever been ever able to show that an intervention with supplemention does a darn thing, outside of the very clear nutritional deficiencies like scurvy, rickets, etc., folate in pregnancy (although that is being questioned now, apparently) and a few others. On the flipide, as I mentioned above, with these claims flying around all over the place, that we can somehow prevent cancer or other diseases by trying to micromanage our diets/nutrients/"chemical" exposure, the organic food, dietary supplement, and fad diet industries make piles of money and people walk around full of anxiety. The recent review on Vitamin D, PMID 26071820, nails it from my perspective - there is almost nothing to say, healthwise. But I'll stop soapboxing and let others respond. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again, Jytdog, for your thoughtful response. Controversy is an inevitable part of scientific progress. EV McCollum himself, who first isolated vitamin D, was widely derided for the idea that it might prevent rickets. The proof of vitamin D in rickets prevention was based on observational and animal studies. Dr. Taylor's commentary represents a certain point of view, but there are many others who would not be so quick to dismiss the importance of vitamin D in public health. I'm attaching a link to another commentary, just for interest. There is incidentally a randomized controlled trial by Lappe et al that meets this highest level of medical evidence which is unfortunately omitted in Dr. Taylor's commentary, but included below. The temporal sequence, consistency across study designs, strength of association, and the dose-response findings each help address the causality issues you question. These factors should be noted in Wikipedia. The important thing in my view is to establish a balanced panel of subject matter experts who could improve this section of Wikipedia, as I've suggested above. Very respectfully, Professor Gorham
What would show benefit would be a placebo controlled RCT of supplementation. As cancer is common showing benefit should not be that hard if a meaningful benefit exists.
The impact factor of the journal in which the article you link is published is 1.6 [7] This is low.
I think we are confusing Health effects of supplementation with another topic: Associations of vitamin D with human disease. We all recognize that the reviews of prospective supplementation studies show uncertain benefits. There is much more to this topic than whether supplements are effective or not. I do not find elsewhere on this page any clear review of the multiple and varying associations with different cancers or discussion of the controversies around causation, association and prevention. Jrfw51 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are associations between vit D levels and health but the question is is that relationship causal and the only thing that can show that is RCTs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this message, Doc James. You may have an interest in the results of a seminal nested case-control study published in Lancet (impact rating?) indicating more than a 75% reduction in colon cancer risk in the third and fourth highest quintiles of serum 25(OH)D. This prospective nested case-control study conducted by myself and colleagues at Johns Hopkins led to numerous others, most with remarkably consistent results. These studies culminated in the EPIC cohort study referenced above.
Incidentally, a randomized controlled trail does exist (abstract also provided below) which found exactly the level of evidence you are seeking. In fact, these investigators observed a 60% reduction in incidence of cancers of all sites in the vitamin D and calcium treatment arm of this trial.
These and many similar results are overlooked in the review by Taylor, et al. This is a drawback of relying solely on reviews. Elevation of this section of Wikipedia to an external panel of experts, such as those suggested above, could, in my opinion, improve this section of Wikipedia substantially. By almost any objective measure, it is currently lacking, both scientifically and factually. If you will not approve, may I request that we elevate to a higher echelon in the Wikipedia review process. Sincerely yours, Prof. Gorham
Lancet. 1989 Nov 18;2(8673):1176-8.
Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and colon cancer: eight-year prospective study.
Garland CF, Comstock GW, Garland FC, Helsing KJ, Shaw EK, Gorham ED.
Abstract
Blood samples taken in 1974 in Washington County, Maryland, from 25 620 volunteers were used to investigate the relation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) with subsequent risk of getting colon cancer. 34 cases of colon cancer diagnosed between August, 1975, and January, 1983, were matched to 67 controls by age, race, sex, and month blood was taken. Risk of colon cancer was reduced by 75% in the third quintile (27-32 ng/ml) and by 80% in the fourth quintile (33-41 ng/ml) of serum 25-OHD. Risk of getting colon cancer decreased three-fold in people with a serum 25-OHD concentration of 20 ng/ml or more. The results are consistent with a protective effect of serum 25-OHD on colon cancer.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.
Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial.
Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP.
Abstract
Numerous observational studies have found supplemental calcium and vitamin D to be associated with reduced risk of common cancers. However, interventional studies to test this effect are lacking.
The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy of calcium alone and calcium plus vitamin D in reducing incident cancer risk of all types.
This was a 4-y, population-based, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was fracture incidence, and the principal secondary outcome was cancer incidence. The subjects were 1179 community-dwelling women randomly selected from the population of healthy postmenopausal women aged >55 y in a 9-county rural area of Nebraska centered at latitude 41.4 degrees N. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 1400-1500 mg supplemental calcium/d alone (Ca-only), supplemental calcium plus 1100 IU vitamin D3/d (Ca + D), or placebo.
When analyzed by intention to treat, cancer incidence was lower in the Ca + D women than in the placebo control subjects (P < 0.03). With the use of logistic regression, the unadjusted relative risks (RR) of incident cancer in the Ca + D and Ca-only groups were 0.402 (P = 0.01) and 0.532 (P = 0.06), respectively. When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12 mo, RR for the Ca + D group fell to 0.232 (CI: 0.09, 0.60; P < 0.005) but did not change significantly for the Ca-only group. In multiple logistic regression models, both treatment and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations were significant, independent predictors of cancer risk.
Improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00352170.
Dr UVB (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cochrane excludes all observational epidemiologic studies including prospective cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and of course, case-control studies, and ecological studies. I don't want to turn this into a discussion of Cochrane, but public health advances linking cigarettes to lung cancer, lack of sunlight and vitamin D to rickets, passive smoking to heart disease, and numerous other medical advances would never have occurred if held to Cochrane criteria. John Snow, to his undying credit, did not randomly allocate people to drink or not drink cholera-tainted water from London's Broad Street pump. We have an opportunity to improve this section of Wikipedia substantially by admitting much published, peer-reviewed evidence approved medical journal editors and excluded by Cochrane. Koch's postulates of causality don't depend on Cochrane. If Cochrane is the current Wiki standard, the result will be to arbitrarily exclude all the lines of epidemiologic evidence described above. I would respectfully request an appeal of that decision, and a repeal of that standard. To whom should I address this request? V/r, Prof. Gorham
Toxicity is very different from treatment. One can study treatment in a blinded fashion. One cannot do the same with toxicity. RCTs are thus not appropriate for toxicity but are for treatment due to the issues of multiple confounders. We do not have the same precautionary principles when doing something like taking a pill that we have when not doing something like smoking or improving air quality.
Additionally we do not just use Cochrane but they are a major position in medicine. We also use the IOM and other systematic reviews. By the way what content are you interested in adding? And are you willing to base the content on recent high quality secondary sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way here are the IOP's conclusions "For extraskeletal outcomes, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders, the evidence was inconsistent, inconclusive as to causality, and insufficient to inform nutritional requirements." [9]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! So observational epidemiologic studies including prospective cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and of course, case-control studies, and ecological studies are admissible. Our panel will review and submit these for inclusion. Thank you, Dr. James. We'll get started on this right away. I'm not sure I completely follow your statements regarding toxicity. It is rarely an issue in vitamin D until serum levels of 25(OH)D exceed at least 100 ng/ml. This would be the approximate equivalent of a daily oral intake of 10,000 IU per day for several weeks. 50,000 IU per week is the prescribed replenishment dose for treating deficiency, or approximately 7,000 IU per day. I hope this is helpful. V/r, Prof. Gorham
To make it clear reviews of RCTs are required to determine if treatment with vitamin D is useful
RCTs are not required to determine if smoking is harmful.
I did not say "So observational epidemiologic studies including prospective cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and of course, case-control studies, and ecological studies are admissible" nor has the others who have commented on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I am not talking about vitamin D for treatment, although there is evidence that vitamin D is an effective adjuvant in cancer treatment. Vitamin D is a nutrient with important hormonal metabolites that have critical endocrine and autocrine functions. There is much epidemiological evidence suggesting that vitamin D (as a nutrient, not a treatment) is important in chronic disease prevention. Are you restricting this page to prevention trials? If so, this page in Wikipedia will not represent the current level of understanding of the role of vitamin D in cancer prevention. It will remain lacking both scientifically and factually. Is that your decision? If so, how may I appeal it? V/r, Prof Gorham
Please move this to the talk:Vitamin_D page where it surely belongs.
This debate still has not addressed whether the scientific background and epidemiological associations of vitamin D and cancer need separate section. The current section is on supplementation (which I have clarified.) Jrfw51 (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
an aggressive chroinc infection of the sweat glands
YDear doctor james
I would like to thank you for this amazing description of the disease(Hidradenitis suppurativa)my name yasmina ahmed and i My father suffers from the disease for about 15 years but now the case has spread widely and the lesions became aggressive under arm and in the region of the thigh. Now he can't tolerate the pain and this makes him suffering from depression. He has undergone several treatment modalities such as intra lesional steroids injection but this treatment has masked the manifestation of the disease for a while and then the case got worsen to end by abscess and has suppressed the immune system ..
My dad is also suffering from diabetes mellitus , hypertension and also he has undergone the surgery of cardiac catherization from 3 months ago and now he is taking anticoagulant therapyaand the doctors refused to do any surgery unless after 6 months to allow him to stop the anticoagulant therapy.. Also my dad has taken some medications such as several types of antibiotics and Netlook but now it is kinda don't give benefits.. I need for your help to rtell me the suitable treatment for my dad and can you also tell me the most suitable country in the treatment of this disease.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc yasmina madkour (talk • contribs) 21:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi doc James
Last week I just read about fistula in ano and I found the latest technique " perfact" by dr. Pankarg garg from India , however I read wiki again and now this technique did not show up on page , why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.55.34.24 (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This WP:ELNO policy seems perverse. There are links to their official websites on three high profile pages I just went to: White House, Medicare and American Medical Association. You will have much more work to do if you wish to delete everything external to WP on the basis there is "nothing unique" there. They will have more detail than we will provide and give a different emphasis! Jrfw51 (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I think the most serious issue is potential bias of one doctor editing the BLP of another doctor. What you're calling spammy does not fit the description per WP:SPAM, what you're calling "peacock" does not fit the description of WP:PEACOCK. You are picking on facts that are sourced. To summarize a doctor's notability as "known internationally" is not a peacock term, it is a fact. I don't get what your problem is with regards to stating facts about the man. Atsme📞📧18:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to list general statements that point to nothing. An accomplished reviewer and writer of numerous GAs and FAs disagreed with you twice and you refuse to drop the stick.
The language is not puffery - it is factual and it is sourced.
It was never copyright infringement - that claim is unwarranted. You are not acting in GF and this is a terrible reflection on you considering your status on WP.
It does not have content that is unsupported by references. I have asked for the specifics and all I get are generalizations and POV from you.
I am really disappointed to see such behavior. What you're doing is trying to create instability and cause the article to be delisted. That is downright shameful. This is retaliatory, nothing more. A lot of editors are aware of it, too. Atsme📞📧19:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I am also a accomplished reviewer and writer of numerous GAs and FAs. Retaliatory for what I do not know. Good to have lots of people aware of this article though. The evidence wrt copyright issues are clearly explained on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are and you are a brilliant physician and deserve respect in every sense. Read the edit summaries if you don't know why I believe it's retaliatory. Also, you're well versed in writing GAs and FAs so you already know that general comments like you keep making are not helpful [10]. I've jumped through all the hoops and if you've been watching that article you know that it doesn't matter how many hoops I jump through, there's another waiting. That is retaliatory and not GF. The only reason a group of editors would propose delisting is if there was conflict and the stewards of the GA were not being cooperative. I'm not talking about bending over to fix unwarranted criticisms, or POVs - I went through and fixed the issues you pointed out. Even after I fixed them, they continued to be criticized and reverted. That will be easy to establish with diffs. I just demonstrated one example of DGG butchering the article by reverting the correction I made after you pointed it out to me, and then removing descriptive material. The evidence that there are no copyvios are also explained. The Duplication Detecter is a good tool to have and it says no copyvios exist. Atsme📞📧01:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is getting better but still issues. I have fixed some more.
The duplication detector tool isn't working? Or are you talking about the credentials list? Doc, I don't want to get all mushy and everything, but you actually brought me to tears because I would have considered it an honor to collaborate on an article with you. It appeared to me that you believed all the nonsense about me being a pusher of quackery and all that other BS that laid on me when it wasn't true at all. And neither were the allegations or what happened to me at COIN. I'm here just trying to go some good, help other editors with copy editing, especially those editors who have trouble with English because it's not their 1st language. And the things you called puffery and what I call puffery are simply differences of opinion. When I used "pioneered" it was (1) because the source said so, and (2) it was innovative. He invented it. Perhaps in medicine it's called "developed". It's not that I'm a bad editor and that I'm trying to promote anything - it's simply a choice of terminology. Atsme📞📧02:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In English their or boring words like "developed" and "designed" and promotional words like "pioneered" and "innovated". We should always be using the boring ones even if the sources use promotional language. It is mostly fixed aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Doc, even though I disagreed with you about the copyvio issue, (I just requested confirmation from the author), I went ahead and changed the entire paragraph where there is not even a question of a copyvio. [11] I guess you overlooked it? Atsme📞📧09:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagreed because the material is public domain. I am growing weary of the accusations which are based on your misunderstanding of public domain, fair use, and copyright laws. FYI, I just received pre-confirmation of the public domain status of the material that raised your concerns and will have the formal notice hopefully by tomorrow. Permissions will receive the original notice and I asked to be copied on it. It's time to drop the stick. We have certain procedures we're expected to follow, and quite frankly you haven't been following them, so please stop trying to make me look like the bad guy. Atsme📞📧21:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. This is the first time you have mentioned this new arguement that the sources you are using were public domain. It is interesting that you have not mentioned said arguement here before
Now of course you can try to now get it release under an open license or into the public domain. But that does not deal with the prior state of things.
With respect to your second arguement regarding "fair use" we only allow fair use on Wikipedia in very rare situations which you can read about here Wikipedia:Non-free content. The fair use arguement is different than the public domain arguement and trying to make both at the same time is disconcerting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did mention it before on the TP - you must not have read it. [13] Perhaps now would be a good time instead of trying to formulate a conspiracy theory. I also changed it entirely to accommodate your concerns but the cries of copyvio kept coming. [14]. We both know you didn't come to edit Racz by chance, Doc. You arrived at Racz with preconceived notions based on the sloppy COIN case that turned into a colonoscopy for me. It has painted us into a corner and now we're waiting for the paint to dry so we can move on. Doc, I understand copvio firsthand based on my experiences in and out of courtroom, most cases settled out of court, and I was never the defendant. I have been extremely careful about my writing and releasing anything that could be construed as a copyvio. I'm not a copyright attorney but I have paid enough of them to raise me to a level or two above ignorance of the law. I also maintained an E&O policy for 30+ years and not once was I ever a defendant in a copyvio case. I don't intend to get stupid now. I'll say it again and maybe this time you'll believe me, but the only reason I created the Racz article was because a friend of mine was his patient. She raved on about him, and I saw her transformation with each treatment. She flew to Lubbock to the pain clinic to get these treatments. Of course I didn't believe her at first - I thought it was the placebo effect - and then I did the research all the while watching her progress. I was inspired - that's what writers do, Doc. They get inspired and they write. Look at the variation of the things I write about. I do thorough research - that's just me. In 2014, I didn't have a clue about MEDRS, but I'm learning. I am weary of the accusations - they are unwarranted. And I don't have a problem with WP:HEAR. Atsme📞📧23:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tool you mention is not perfect. There were copy and paste issues based on the fact of similarities with sources that were not marked as PD. You have corrected those issues and the concern is that you are denying that their was ever any issues.
You should simply state, 1) yes I copied and pasted from the source 2) I understand that this is not allowed per WPs policies (we do not typically allow text under fair use) 3) Than state that you will not do it again. Instead we have this. But as you will. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please...even if it wasn't public domain, and it is, facts are not copyrightable and there's also fair use. Please, please try to understand what I'm saying. In some instances, a special arrangement of facts may be - for example, a specially designed chart, or a graph, etc. - but this was a list of his credentials and recognitions that were used for his biography. Works Not Covered By Copyright There is also "fair use" which states (my bold): "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." [15]. I would venture to guess an encyclopedia would fall under "teaching" and "scholarship". There was one sentence - a statement of fact - that I used verbatim citing the WIP site, but that statement of fact was also in his CV which lists other statements of fact about his credentials and recognitions that I used as well. I can extract facts from that CV - that's what a CV is for - it's a list of facts. His CV is 66 pages - I used a couple of paragraphs. It is public domain. [16] If you really need me to admit to something, I will admit that I may have gotten a little lazy trying to reword all of the facts, some of which were impossible to reword. I managed to get most of it done, but I couldn't get all of it. That doesn't make it a copyvio and I would appreciate it very much if you would stop accusing me of copyvio. I have jumped through enough hoops to satisfy your concerns and should not have to keep jumping. Now then - you can teach me how to perform an appendectomy. Atsme📞📧02:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look to me like you used a couple of paragraphs from the CV. For example, on page 25, the CV says Awarded the MORICCA AWARD presented by the Italian Pain Society, July 2006 whereas the WIP text said In July 2006 he received the MORICCA AWARD, the highest award presented by the Italian Pain Society. Similarly, there's nothing in the CV about 1,800 physicians from 72 countries attending the 2007 WIP world congress, which also appeared on the WIP page. In both cases, the additional details would have had to have been researched and referenced if you'd pulled the basic facts from the CV. As well, there's nothing in the CV about him being an advocate for high standards of certification and training among pain physicians and works toward the advancement of those goals but that information does appear on the WIP page. Finally, the CV isn't structured in paragraphs like the WIP page is. Since the article text was almost identical to the WIP text in wording, layout, and order, but differed from the CV text in details and layout, to me it appears much more likely that you used a couple of paragraphs from the WIP page instead of the CV. Ca2james (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The CV is shared on the Yumpu/i-mag site (and should probably not be used as a source in any case). Note that material here is not public domain but appears to be subject to this company's Terms of Service, specifically:
5.1 All information on this website is provided by i-mag without guarantee of accuracy, completeness, or topicality.
5.2 Unless explicitly prohibited in regards to an excerpt, a file, or document, the User may view, copy, print, or share documents in accordance to following provisions:
5.2.1 Use for commercial purposes is prohibited.
5.2.2 Any copy of a document or parts of a document shall embody these copyright provisions.
5.2.3 Amendments to documents as well as copies or parts thereof, are subject to i-mag’s prior written approval.
This (effective) content license is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's which does not (e.g.) prohibit commercial use. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DROPTHESTICK, you're WP:WIKILAWYERING and you are not making any sense, WP:CIR. As I explained to Doc James, I contacted the author. Doc James also advised me to have them add the notice on their website which I did. It was embarrassing for me to do because common sense and copyright laws tell us it is not a copyvio so it took them totally by surprise because they thought I was accusing them of a copyright infringement. I advised them of what Doc James advised me to do. It is public domain and all you're doing now is beating a decaying carcass and raising a stink. You cannot copyright facts. There is fair use. If you wish to pursue this further despite the information I've provided, contact the attorneys for Wikipedia and have them confirm. Doc James is a functionary - it shouldn't be an issue for him to contact them. Atsme📞📧12:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is the content on the Yumpu/i-mag site is not public domain. A cavalier attitude about content permissions is a worry, as it jeopardizes the position of Wikipedia & the WMF. However it's clear at this point you're not listening but still on the attack, so I'll write no more here. Alexbrn (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, which page did the CV author tell you was public domain? Was it the CV itself on Yumpu or was it the bio published on WIP (that has been removed and no public domain notice has been added)? Also, while facts aren't copyrighted, the language used to present them is copyrighted; even if use of the WIP text was allowable under fair use (which it wasn't - please see WP:NFCCP and WP:COPYOTHERS), it would have had to be properly quoted and attributed. Ca2james (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that, but it isn't clear to me which site the "it" in It is public domain is referring to: the CV, or the WIP site. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Atsme your arguments do not make sense. You have had a number of very experience Wikipedians explain to you that what you did is not okay and that your explanation does not make sense. Attacking those giving you advice is not useful.
If I do what I did....and that means? Just to confirm so there is no further question, your warning implies that what I did was a copyvio, correct? I just want to be clear about the warning. Atsme📞📧18:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Doc - I hope the following will ease your mind regarding what you thought was a copyvio:
From: "Brashear, Paula"
Subject: FW: I need a statement from you, please?
Date: July 13, 2015 at 2:53:59 PM AST
To: "permissions@wikimedia.org" <permissions@wikimedia.org>
Dear Atsme:
I am Paula Brashear, (Secretary to Gabor Racz) and editor of Curriculum Vitae of Gabor B. Racz, MD, ChB, DABPM, FIPP
Be advised the article is free of copyright and in the public domain.
(Proper signatories)
And also
From: Gabor Racz
Subject: Re: I need a statement from you, please?
Date: July 12, 2015 at 3:34:01 PM AST
To: Atsme Thatsme
Thank you for the clarification and I am asking Paula to send you such a statement.
In addition I am also stating that I am the responsible author and my name and title: Gabor B Racz MD, FIPP, DABPP.
Grover Murray Professor
Professor and Chairman Emeritus Department of Anesthesiology. Co-Director Pain Center, TTUHSC
be advised the article is free of copyright and in the public domain.
Sincerely
Gabor B Racz MD FIPP, DABPP,
Grover Murray Professor,
Professor and Chairman Emeritus TTUHSC, Co-Director PainCenter.
Past President WIP
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to issue warnings of blocks without specifying what I did wrong is inappropriate, and carries the strong scent of retaliation. I'm not a bad editor and I actually am competent not to mention thorough. I'm not perfect but I strive to be. Let's say for example 3 editors here on WP told you that the surgery article you created, co-authored and had promoted to GA was incorrect, full of inaccuracies, that it was garbage, should be deleted, and was a violation of your Hippocratic Oath when all that actually needed improvement were a few upgrades to RS, a correction in wording of a treatment, and the rest being POV regarding style of writing - how would you respond? (just trying to provide a scenario to which you can best relate because a copyvio to me is like a Hippocratic Oath to you, of course on a much lesser scale). You know what you know - you're not just experienced at it, you're skilled at it - so please, let's try to exercise a little professional courtesy here. I addressed all of your concerns at Racz. I went the extra mile but you're still making groundless accusations and now a warning that just isn't fair. Atsme📞📧19:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Making the first few edits can be a little daunting. I will make sure that I go through the relevant guidelines before making any further edits. Thank you again for all the help. Salman.ali87 (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Salman.ali87 It can take a little time to figure out editing Wikipedia. This was true for all of us. Pubmed allows one to search for reviews from the last 5 years using the tabs on the left. If you start with recent review articles from well recognized journals like PLOS, Cochrane, NEJM, BMJ all will go well :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Doctor,
I am Satwinder Singh From India . I read your report on Night terror on wiki. I think it is similar to my condition . since my childhood days i see these odd dreams . when i tried to tell my parents they took it as some sort of wodo magic . wasted like 3000$ till now. Sir i think i m in stage 2 . sir please i need ur help please . i can't sleep . my parents cant help . i tried suicide many times but it didn't help i am stuck between life n death ....life which i m not able to live n death which i cant have. Satwinder3178 (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, I understand the majority of your edits on my section today, but I don't understand why you took out the quote and the absolutely vital information about the Beck treatment manual. I worked really hard on that article and getting the section added last night. I worked hard to narrow it down to just the most pertinent information. I really feel that quote is necessary so as that readers know that the interpretations of the study are the authors' and not those of the wikipedia user putting the information up. I understand you're a moderator, and that I have to show good faith. But, I can't understand what the point of contributing is when you are going to habitually follow up after me and "tidy up" everything single thing I do. I work very hard to make my posts count. I am not a casual "adder" to wikipedia. If you have a problem with what I am posting, then please let me know and I will stop contributing because I don't want to be putting in the kind of time that I do just to have it consistently edited and/or undone by you. Please, restore the quote and the comment about the manual. I completely agreed with your other edits, though. Urstadt (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We use very few quotes per WP:Non free textUser:Urstadt. We should just provide a summary of the ref and provide the ref to indicate that that is were the position comes from.
By the way what does " An additional finding of this study was that the declining treatment effects were more pronounced when the Beck treatment manual for CBT was used." refer to? Can you clarify? Do you mean that the decline was greater among those treated using the procedures outlines in the Beck treatment manual? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies. I was fully aware of the few quotes as possible policy but had forgotten about it in my work last night. So, I completely own that and further agree with your decision to remove it. I will do better to remember that policy in future contributions.
Regarding the Beck manual, the authors are saying that the downward trend in CBT efficacy between 1977 and 2014 was steeper when they just analyzed studies where the researchers had therapists in the test group use said manual. Meaning, studies where therapists in the test group were not instructed to use the manual are showing a decline in positive outcomes, but studies of therapists adhering to the manual are showing a steeper decline in positive outcomes the past 37 years. So in answer to your last question of the post, yes. Urstadt (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is true. But that detail IMO belongs on the varices page. Hepatic encephalopathy is also potentially life threatening as is spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. These complications are not good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not seem strange that nowhere in the lede of the article it is explained that cirrhosis as a condition is potentially life threatening due to complications stemming for its effects on the body? That seems like such a fundamental aspect about cirrhosis, no? 92.128.1.84 (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It states "Cirrhosis resulted in 1.2 million deaths in 2013" which sounds very bad. So yes it states cirrhosis is not only life threatening but results in a large loss of life. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, down towards the bottom. It wouldn't be out of place to put a bit of emphasis on such a fundamental part of what cirrhosis and its complications are about (being life-threatening) more towards the initial part of the lede. Having the statistics to back it up lower in the lede will explain in more concrete terms what that looks like. 92.128.1.84 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fine balance. Some argue for not containing prognosis for diseases with a poor prognosis in the lead as not to too negatively effect those who are reading the article initially. The compromise has been to put it in the lower part of the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with that though is that folks will almost certainly be more inclined to have less regard for the seriousness of a given malady. I read in your response the thought to provide a sort of psychological buffer for those affected by such diseases when they come to read the articles on them but it is likely more to the benefit of those readers that the stark reality of those conditions be made plain so that if they so desire they can try to take steps (i.e. self advocation) to get themselves more comprehensive treatments. Having worked with people affected by cirrhosis in particular I know from personal experience that it has been the case that there was a distinct lack of respect for what having cirrhosis would mean for those individuals short of having liver transplants. 92.128.1.84 (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was guidance recommended by Cancer Research UK. Also our article leads typically follow our article bodies. Thus epidemiology and prognosis go lower in the lead / body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this article deleted, why have you been working on it to improve it? I'm trying to decide whether or not I need to keep trying to edit it so that it meets MEDRs and addresses the concerns of those involved in the discussion, but if there is consensus for its deletion why try? Best Regards,
I initially voted to userfy it. But now think there are too many issues. It mixes up to many titles of associations from direct causal to indirect to unclear. You can of course put it in your user space and create something new from it though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
