User talk:Doc James

This is a Wikipedia user 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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 click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by .

If you have time..

..Could you or one of your minions in the Medical area take a look at this request on the Fringe noticeboard please. Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found some decent sources. We have merged here Epidermal_growth_factor#Medical_uses Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

mitragyna speciosa

Please see my additions to the mitragyna speciosa talk page. The DEA does not say what it defines as a death from kratom, and the original source regarding naloxone does not use it in a context relating to kratom Ingenium (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by User:Umais Bin Sajjad

You blocked his person for copyright violations and COI issues. The images are clearly copyvios so can you just delete them or do I have to go through and tag them all as F9 individually? Obviously they are not own work. I was just going through recent uploads when I stumbled across this person's uploads. I can start going through them an tagging them all but that is just a lot of work when the result is really really obvious. You said it yourself on their talk page, they would have had to been in two places at once to take some of those photos. --Majora (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Majora they said they would get OTRS approval for all of them. I guess the question is do we give them some time to do so? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally no. We don't. People who put things under {{self}} and are caught lying have their images tagged F9 and deleted immediately. At least as far as I've been tagging images. F11, the no permissions/you have seven days to send in permissions to OTRS one, is for people who attempt to at least give credit where credit is due. It is up to you though. They all have to be checked and tagged either way. F9 or F11. Just let me know and I will start going through them. --Majora (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank User:Majora. Will delete tonight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Majora done. Let me know if I missed any. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James. I did a quick scroll through of their remaining uploads and they look fine. Mostly movie posters correctly placed under fair use. Thanks for grabbing the other ones. --Majora (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look too, and concur. I tagged this logo image as orphaned. After the speedy deletions go through, we may have one or two more orphaned fair use images. (edited to add) Whoops, here's one recently orphaned: File:Techshore Inspection Services.png. - Brianhe (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Liston

Would you mind taking a look at this immunologist - Adrian Liston - and try to determine whether or not this person merits an article on Wikipedia. It appears to be a new article (I am doing New Page Patrol at the moment) I am not familiar with what would be considered making a significant contribution to the field of medicine. This person appears to have had articles published in "Nature" and "Science", which is a nice start for determining notability. For help in making your decision, see the refs and see Google Scholar. If you can't do it let me know, and I will probably post on the project talk page. Thanks in advance. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG is more of an expert in this than I. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn, meets WP:PROF on he basis of the influence of his published work. Citations in Google scholar for his top articles are 660, 450,.... DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it may be worth, I took a look too, and I agree that he is notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical references and WP:REPCITE

Is there an explicit guideline or MOS for that? Nightscream (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The essay you point to says "One can additionally hide citations with to prevent confusion in the future; then can be uncommented if new material with different sources is interpolated later."[1] I have adjusted it some to clarify.

If every sentence is not referenced someone adds a cn tag. The hidden refs speed up the follow up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that Wikipedia does not used primary sources. As a public health physician and psychiatrist, I had hoped to enhance the fetal alcohol spectrum disorders article in Wikipedia by adding a conversation about sociological/cultural context. My experience with community health is that there are a lot of blind sides on on both sides of the equation. The sociologists often lack an understanding of the biologic aspects of the social determinants of health and the physicians often lack an understanding of the sociological/cultural aspects that determine health care outcomes. Accordingly, I thought the Wikipedia section on the high prevalence of FASD in rural Australia was a nice addition as it highlighted a sociological/cultural context where FASD is reaching epidemic proportions, and I thought my research on Chicago's Southside would compliment the Australian study. The reality is that FASD is thought to be more common in Native-American, African-American, and Hispanic populations as there are several published indicators of this reality. Unfortunately, as the 16th Surgeon General illustrated in his Culture, Race, and Ethnicity Report, most of the research in the US is focused on middle class, European-American populations, thereby limiting information about different cultures, races, and ethnicities. From a public health perspective this is a huge problems as most health scourges in society migrate from one cultural, race and ethnicity to others - so no one is safe. The most recent example of this is the opioid epidemic that has recently struck the US European-American community. The US would be in a much better position had it studied this problem in the African-American community where it has been a problem for decades, but which was not researched. When I asked Dr. Satcher about what he thought about the oversight he said that "Two wrongs do not make a right." He is absolutely correct, just because the country did not research the problems in African-Americas does not mean the problem should be ignored with European-Americans making it "Tit for Tat." So, I am trying to correct the problem of health disparities in America and the contribution I made to Wikipedia was a move to forward that quest. But, it is is not deemed good enough for what ever reason, that is fine with me. I will seek to correct public health problems in other ways. I just find it unfortunate there is a lack of understanding about how to correct the problems of public health in the US. When I worked with Julius Richmond (Carter's and Johnson's Surgeon General) he noted to institutionalize public health fixes you needed a strong science base, a mechanism to correct the public health problems, and political will to fix the problem. Part of creating political will is giving the public information that there is a problem. So, I will use other forms of media to do that - so far I have been able to get some National Public Radio attention to the problem of FASD and I am working with the National Academy of Science and National Academy of Medicine to address the issue. It will take time but I have shifted the Nation's public health policy several times in the past, so it will take some time but it will happen as the science will bear me out and after a while it will be unethical to ignore facts. Thanks for you help with this problem.