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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Secondary Sources

Wikipedia specifically sites peer reviewed journals as ideal sources for citations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_primary_and_secondary_sources_for_biology_articles#Scientific_journals). Many of these articles contain a discussion or comments section. Where and when is a secondary source absolutely required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.49.228.255 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High quality secondary sources are generally required for health care content per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For healthcare dietary supplement ingredients, often the research is scant and there are only primary sources or low quality secondary sources. Is it possible to use primary sources with qualifying statements, or better to not write anything? An example I have been trying to improve from what I found originally, but am still troubled with, is citicoline for amblyopia. Thanks.David notMD (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:David notMD Which ref are you wanting to use for what text? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Text is ""Citicoline improves visual function in patients with glaucoma [18] and may improve amblyopia("lazy eye") when combined with eye patch treatment.[19]" Ref #18 is a review. Ref #19 is a clinical trial. There are no useful published reviews for citicoline and amblyopia. There are five clinical trials, of which Pawar is the most recent.

Pawar PV, Mumbare SS, Patil MS, Ramakrishnan S. Effectiveness of the addition of citicoline to patching in the treatment of amblyopia around visual maturity: a randomized controlled trial. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014 Feb;62(2):124-9. doi:10.4103/0301-4738.128586. PubMed PMID: 24618483; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4005224.

P.S. As a reminder of my situation. I am a consultant to dietary supplement companies. My clients do not know I edit Wikipedia entries. None have ever asked me to do so. None of my current or past clients have expressed any interest in citicoline for vision.David notMD (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to leave it out if there is no review looking at it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Going to do that.David notMD (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edition in Mama Quilla

Hallo!: any search engine with the key words connected to the edition I've done will provide you with the references, I didn't include it, because of its brief content and 'trivial pursuit' nature, but it are enough reference, please check, and revert deletion! This is the way the academies of languages search for a new term or acception to be included in dictionnaires, it's time consuming, hard work, but deletion is very easy, and many times, harmful. Don't destroy someone else's work because you don't want working on checking its accuracy. Regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of our core policies is WP:V. Please add references as it will help your additions stick. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hope this will help

User talk:Doc James/Archive 107#trying......has been about 2 weeks since,(not to mention more than 2 months since the beginning of the year/for 2016 stats[1]), therefore[2]i hope this helps--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have people working on it. Hopefully a week or two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here

A discussion regarding your reinsertion of that project banner (here) has been expanded at VPR. To centralize the discussion, please comment there. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously User:Xaosflux? I self reverted 6 minutes after making the edit as I had missed the discussion being removed from the archives and closed.[3] And than you 8 hours latter restart the discussion without mentioning that.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was error on my side, apologies for the confusion - adding an apology to the other thread and closing it. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think / hope we are reaching a reasonable compromise regarding the issues in question. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sneddon's syndrome

Hi Doc James, I notice this issue:

one form of IgA pemphigus' is Subcorneal pustular dermatosis or Sneddon–Wilkinson disease.
According to this link, Sneddon-Wilkinson disease has alternative eponyms:
- Duhring-Sneddon-Wilkinson syndrome
- Sneddon syndrome
Sneddon syndrome is another article.

I'm waiting for you advice and action. Regards --محمود (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that source is correct per [4] and [5]. Have updated the Wikipedia pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page : Pathophysiology of Parkinson's disease

Dear Doc James,

I wanted to discuss the reason behind changing the title of the page from "Neuronal Death in Parkinson's Disease" to "Pathophysiology of Parkinson's Disease". By definition, the word "Pathophysiology" would have to deal with physiology of the disease as well. In my opinion, the details on this page relate more to the contents under the "Anatomical" on the Parkinson's Disease page than to the "Pathophysiology" section. I present my point based on the details in the journal article by Bartels and Leenders ^[1] What do you think?

Timenotpass (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Bartels, Anna L.; Leenders, Klaus L. (2009): Parkinson's disease: The syndrome, the pathogenesis and pathophysiology. In Cortex 45 (8), pp. 915–921. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2008.11.010.

Yes pathophysiology is a slightly broader topic and that article should include further broader details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

Update 7 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (16 February 2017)
- Development of documentation for Tracks A & B
Update 8 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (24 February 2017)
- Introduction of Track Leads for all four audience tracks
Update 9 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (2 March 2017)
- Seeking feedback on documents being used to help facilitate upcoming community discussions

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help

Response to talk page warning

This is a friendly note in response to your warning on my talk page ~~to ask you to assume good faith~~. I will raise the substantive arguments on the article talk page - which I did previous to making the original edit - but I feel you have been too hasty in jumping in with warnings. Your original revert of my 2 edits reinstated my fix to the reference and appeared to take no notice of the fact I had already started a discussion on the talk page - this was me clearly engaging the WP:BRD process and your reversion does not appear to have been carefully considered.

Posting warnings on talk pages of established editors generally just inflames the situation, and I find it better in the first instance to engage with a personal note. Please don't conflate my constructive editing with some of the more pointed editing by some on these difficult articles. While not a prolific editor I have engaged in multiple discussions over the years on Circumcision and Abortion so know these are difficult articles. BW |→ Spaully ^~talk~ 12:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC) ^{Edited 15:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

It is an exceedingly controversial topic. The content you removed has been in the article a long time. You need to wait for consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misquotation of high quality secondary source

The meta-analysis by Belknap et al addresses the *reliability* of adverse drug event reporting in finasteride clinical trials. The material you have deleted accurately describes the conclusion of Belknap et al. The text reverted too is in error.

Take it to the talk page. Your editing such as this [6] is becoming disruptive. That section is specifically about "sexual function" not about the safety profile generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry about the revert loop on your edit at WP:ANI yesterday evening. Using my phone with the desktop site, especially with the watchlist is as problematic as ever. The watchlist loads, I wait, I click, then the page re-jiggles itself and [rollback] jumps to the point where I clicked... *sigh* Sorry. Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Juvenile Research Wikipedia entry

3-12- 17 Good morning, I was writing a small book on the issue of fetal alcohol exposure and decided to give some of my experience as the Director for the Institute for Juvenile Research (IJR) for a few years as I thought the history of IJR was relevant to the discussion I was putting in the small book. Accordingly, I went to Wikipedia to check on the entry and I found the concern that because I was a major contributor to the article I might not have a neutral point of view and it may require clean up. I appreciate this concern, however when I was the Director of IJR it was of some concern that in a major textbook on the history of psychiatry after World War II, Schowalter had credited IJR as being the birthplace of child psychiatry. It also concerned me that the history of IJR was not on Wikipedia as there was a lot of great work done in this organization long before I got there. So, I put in a small contribution on IJR. As I did not think of myself in the same league as Franz Alexander or Julius Richmond (former Directors of IJR), I did not include myself as a Director. Suffice it to say for reasons I am not clear of, someone apparently later inserted my name, so you can imagine my surprise about that insertion.

I don't know what to tell you about the concern about my not having a neutral point of view other than I do not have any conflict of interest here. Having been on several Institute of Medicine (now called the National of Medicine) committees and on a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, I am very familiar with conflict of interest declarations. So, I was the Director of IJR for three years, but that does not define my professional career - in fact it is a small part of it - so I am not so attached to my short stint at IJR that I am blinded or some how biased favorably or unfavorably about the place.

I just thought the history of the Birthplace of Child Psychiatry should be available on Wikipedia. I am now retired from the University of Illinois and I am in the status of a Professor Emeritus, so in my mind I am even further removed from any slanted point of view regarding IJR. I hope this talk helps but if not remove the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlcbellmd (talk • contribs) 12:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to Institute for Juvenile Research entry talk

As the Institute for Juvenile Research article is in question, I am a quandary on how to proceed. I guess I will not use the Wikipedia reference for the Institute for Juvenile Research in the small book, I can easily find another one but it may not be an on line reference so the reference will have less accessibility. Thanks for your diligence, I certainly don't want Wikipedia to be tainted with garbage. Carlcbellmd (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Bartels, Anna L.; Leenders, Klaus L. (2009): Parkinson's disease: The syndrome, the pathogenesis and pathophysiology. In Cortex 45 (8), pp. 915–921. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2008.11.010.

[1]