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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.
Hi, I see that you have been involved at that article. It seems to have been whitewashed and appears to offer medical opinions on use and safety. I added a section expressing some documented concerns. I suspect that PR people amy watch and edit that page at the behest of the company. Thanks!
Will look. This article Tylenol (brand) is about the brand not the medication. Thus I removed your addition which belongs on the other page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it seems that there should be some warning at the article, or possibly a comment and a link to the section at the article on the medication. I really think that article is "tended" by the company. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big link at the top that says "For information about the active ingredient in Tylenol, see paracetamol, also known as acetaminophen." This article is only about the branded product. And no I do not think the company has had any involvement. Most of the article is about Tylenol recalls. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, glad that somebody of your caliber is on top of this article. I don't do much at WP anymore, but am always concerned for the welfare of the project. Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bronchiectasis conferences
Doc James,
You commented "too spammy". I think otherwise, and value this conference series highly.
How about at least a link to disease registries? That would be useful to both patients and researchers, and acceptable to you?
We do not link to conferences on Wikipedia pages generally. What do you mean by registries? You mean for people to sign up for research? We tend not to link to those either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there are rogue patient-fishing websites out there. As a physician you must know that, but you must also know that there is a great need for patients in legitimate clinical trials.
Sure but Wikipedia is not here to help anyway collect patients for clinical trails. So I am not supportive of linking to registries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James you have sent me a nice message before so I am reaching out to you.
I am a professor at Johns Hopkins University.
I am now the Director of Biomedical Engineering there.
It is a wonderful thing.
Is it possible to have the warning on the wiki page for Michael I. Miller removed.
It appeared after I added the Directorship myself which was announced July 2017 by the University.
Everything on the page is accurate.
It currently says it is an advertizement but everything is stated as exactly true.
Warm regards and thank-you for doing what you do.
I am trying to help my department become modern like Computer Science at Stanford and at Oxford.
Mim.cis (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed this article and have edited to a more neutral point of view. Unfourtunately, this editor is creating articles and editing articles about his colleagues. It appears that he may be inserting the research that they have done. Personally, I don't have a problem with the research being added, but the editor needs to declare his association with the topics that he is editing. I believe he is acting in good faith but doesn't understand the policies that well. You're an administrator-what is the best way to approach this? He is an expert in his field and to think that he is spending time editing is encouraging-but how to handle this? Best Regards, Bfpage (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC) aka Barbara (WVS)[reply]
More bad news. Computational anatomy was written by Miller Mim.cis and is chock full of his research. It's an impressive article but there will always be a problem with people, who in good faith, believe their research is so important (and it may be) that WP seems like the best way to get out the info on their research. This is really too bad.
Tag each of his article in which he has inserted his research? He's created 26 articles and has been warned on his talk page about his COI. Is there a way to extract his references to his own research in these articles? Do you have a magic administrator's tool? He's made over 4000 edits. Bfpage (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes tag each. Other searching for his name no easy way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll tag them. There is an easy way to find his research, btw. It is time consuming but using the browser to find all the instances of the word "Miller" in the article reveals all his research. It is possible to 'surgically remove' (pun intended) all references to his research - but OH so tedious. I really don't want that job....and I'm not volunteering because it would take weeks to go through each of the 26 articles filled with his research. Can you assign it to someone else? Bfpage (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You would be wise to read the sources before citing them. The Lancet review you have added, while published in 2017, refers to exactly the same old sources than the other papers.
The same goes for the wikipedia guidelines you refer to. There is no recent systematic review on heart failure incidence. And in this case, the guidelines recommend that one presents the facts from recent studies within their context, and not blocking wikipedia readers access to recent knowledge as you seem to be keen to do.
Hello, I am sorry to bother you but I am writing because I need some help or advice on the MSG page. We are citing an article incorrectly. Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) say clearly in their abstract that "Because of the absence of proper blinding, and the inconsistency of the findings, we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists between MSG ingestion and headache." We say there is "no good evidence" which is not at all the same. Any evidence published in a peer reviewed article (and not retracted) is "good" evidence. There are several double-blind studies that found a link in the O and N (2016) study, but many did not. Hence, the results are inconsistent and in the opinion of the authors, there is not enough evidence to suggest a link. I am asking for a change from "no good evidence" to "inconsistent findings." I would like to continue saying that "there does not appear to be a link between normal MSG consumption and headaches." I just don't want to inaccurately cite their article. I've even been told the wording has already been agreed on but I never agreed. I am asking for your help to make this page right. Thank you for your time and consideration.FFN001 (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One can summarize "Because of the absence of proper blinding, and the inconsistency of the findings, we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists" as "there is no go evidence". This is simply the easier to understand version of the more technical wording.
Thank you for your note about removing the information I added about MBP. What would be the proper way to add information to a page referencing this book? I have never added to this site before. Thanks.
Last week I changed a lot in the background program on the server. That large article de:Deutschland which took about 45 minutes before, takes now 7 minutes and a few seconds. I did this, because the engl. WP has a different characteristic than the german, it holds a lot more huge articles with a lot more edits. So filling the database was really slow (compared to german wikipedia). Now I know a lot more about C# (I still do not like that language), about the Wikipedia-API and the way that numbers are computed. Usually I run a test script which compares the output of APPERs original program with the new version before I upload the server program to the toolforge-server, but I did not do this today when I made just a small change (with bad side effects). Sorry for that. About 900 articles showed up that bad numbers, 357 in the engl. Wikipedia, the rest in the german, but they where all fixed about an hour later. --Wurgl (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks for all your work on this. It is an excellent tool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Small change: As in my User:Wurgl/common.js you can add a variable 'WikiHistory' with the possible values 'info', 'view' or 'all'. So the small like with the percentage will show up on the "Page information"-page or on the main page of the article or on both. When not defined, the behavior is like before: Just on the article page. This variable should be defined before loading WikiHistory.js is loaded. --Wurgl (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
Technical news
Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Hello, Doc James. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi James, could you please review the intro to the section on "causes"?
I wanted to remove:
"The arrhythmias that lead to sudden cardiac arrest or death can be a result of cardiac and non-cardiac causes, which includes the following:"
It is a sentence (second paragraph in causes) that comes before CAD, but I do not find it clear. I was going to list the causes in this sentence, or remove it entirely.
Thanks. It makes more sense to me. I appreciate your help. JenOttawa (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sign versus symptom
Hi Doc James,
You said in a recent reversion on Rett syndrome that symptom is widely used in many parts of the world for both 'sign' and 'symptom'. I notice this is not reflected in the Symptom article neither did you provide any evidence. Just saying. Regards. Richard Avery (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes will see if I can find a source and add it their.
sorry to bug you again should you have the time Id appreciate your input on [4] thank you as always--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your revert with quote as I was about to change a lot more in the section. Oddly enough I see the quote when comparing revisions, but not in the wiki article itself. My gripe is with the selective misrepresented/misreading of the sources in this section to make it appear as if insecticide use is not a viable source of management, whereas as I read it, it is the main method used in combination with mechanical treatments, with as second effective treatment sealing of the entire building and heating the entire space for a few hours. The two most used sources here both state problems with both mechanical and chemical treatments. Yet vacuuming, using mattress coverings, or drying is said to be 'effective' in the article, but not in the sources (rather the opposite). If 'effective' is defined as 100% eradication of the pests in all situations all the time then no method is 'truly effective'.
As it appears you are on point on this, I will edit what I was going to do more slowly and with more explanation.
Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are not nearly as effective as they once were, that is fairly established. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't right. I'm pretty sure "manufactured hormone" can be either a natural hormone or a chemical analogue that is manufactured in a lab. Whereas a "synthetic hormone" explicitly refers to chemical analogues like progestins. NickCT (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hormones can be synthesized inside people or animals aswell per biosynthesis. From my understanding we are referring to those that are made or manufactured. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm.... While I agree with your statement, I think your use of term "synthetic" may be a non-common use. I think the term "synthetic hormone" is almost exclusively used to refer to chemicals that are analogues of naturally occurring hormones. I don't think "synthetic hormone" usually means "a hormone that has been synthesized" (which, as you say, could basically be anything). NickCT (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think there's another common term (i.e. bio-identical), which means a "manufactured" hormone with the same chemical structure as the naturally occuring hormone (i.e. not a chemical analogue. NickCT (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with NickCT. Please see wikt:synthetic, where there are multiple definitions. Although def. 2 is where one says that it can be synthesized biologically, def. 3 is the most common usage in this particular context, in my experience. Thus, a hormone molecule that has been manufactured to be different in structure from the endogenous compound is "synthetic" in the sense of being "artificial", whereas the endogenous hormone is "genuine". "Manufactured" is really more about the process of making the substance, whereas "synthetic" is widely understood as being of a different chemical structure than the endogenous compound. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not endogenous, than by definition it must be manufactured. I do not like the term "man made" as it is not gender neutral. Synthetic as it has similar meanings that can lead to confusion is thus also not the best. Also not a big fan of "artificial" as that term also has various meanings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Synthetic" may have different meanings, but I think in the context of endocrinology, "synthetic" has a very specific meaning. My sentiment would be to use the terms in their academic context but perhaps I'm being jargon-y.
I guess we could just avoid the issue all together with; "It is a progestin and has effects similar to those of the hormone progesterone." NickCT (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Back when I used to teach the pharmacology of diabetes, it was commonplace to talk about "natural" and "synthetic" insulin formulations. For Google hits, "synthetic insulin" comes up a lot more than "manufactured insulin", with the latter actually returning the phrase with "synthetic" as its first results. (And for what little it may be worth, I've heard of subcellular organelles described as "manufacturing" compounds as though they were little factories.) Anyway, just thought I'd offer my two cents. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: - Your two cents is worth at least 3 cents in my book. Insulin is a tough-y, b/c I think it has yet its own set of jargon. For instance, I think the term "Human Insulin" almost always means "manufactured" or "non-endogenous" insulin. Very confusing.
For the small-molecule hormones at least, I'm pretty sure "synthetic" means "chemical analogue". NickCT (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (Maybe you get what you pay for!) And I agree with you about small molecules. Anyway, I hope it helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer using less techy terms in the leads. The more techy ones can be used in the body of the tex.
Nicks suggestion of "It is a progestin and has effects similar to those of the hormone progesterone." is perfectly appropriate aswell IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for pondering. NickCT (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James. I was wondering if you thought a layperson could interpret the first sentence in this note, which was written in rather technical language until yesterday. I tried to rewrite it in a manner that a non-statistician could interpret. I didn't try to simplify the 2nd sentence, which is the range for the point estimate (i.e., a 0.352 kg increase in mass) based upon a 5% significance/95% confidence level.
My motivation for writing that note was to give someone an idea of the rate at which daily HMB intake increases muscle mass over time, which the meta-analysis didn't explicitly state. One could easily figure that out by dividing the estimated increase in muscle mass by the sample-weighted average duration of the studies from this note (NB: the meta-analysis didn't compute a sample-weighted average duration, I computed that manually): i.e., .352/6 = 0.059 kilograms/month (0.129 pounds/month), which translates to an average increase in muscle mass of 0.71 kg (1.55 pounds) per year. I figured that stating this rate in the article would be construed as WP:OR, so I didn't explicitly state it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current note 3
The meta-analysis found that the average increase in muscle mass among the participants of the seven studies that was due to HMB supplementation was 0.352 kilograms (0.78 lb).[1] The 95% confidence interval for the estimated increase in muscle mass due to HMB supplementation is 0.110–0.594 kilograms (0.24–1.31 lb).[1] The seven randomized controlled trials that were included in the meta-analysis contained a total of 147 older adults in the HMB treatment groups and 140 older adults in the control groups.[1] The studies had durations of 2–12 months and the average duration of the studies, weighted by their sample size, was approximately 6 months.[1]
References
^ abcdCite error: The named reference Meta-analytic systematic review September 2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
