| 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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. |
 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 Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
|
|
https://www.health.harvard.edu/
But i believe that this website would be sufficient for non medical wiki citations?--Disoff (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Disoff how do you want to use it? And can you provide some context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Doc James I was reading this page: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/sad-depression-affects-ability-think-201605069551
and on a preliminary glance, i noticed that the Major_depressive_disorder page did not list some of the info on harvard's page.
In particular, the harvard page said: "It can also lower your cognitive flexibility (the ability to adapt your goals and strategies to changing situations) and executive functioning (the ability to take all the steps to get something done)."
Whereas ctrl+F on Major_depressive_disorder indicates that there is no specific mention of cognitive flexibility decrease. The MDD article also says: "Older depressed people may have cognitive symptoms of recent onset, such as forgetfulness,[25] and a more noticeable slowing of movements.[30]" while the harvard article doesn't specify age ranges.--Disoff (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure it is needed for that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, are you saying something like cognitive flexibility should be left off the dpression article?
- We should likely have a better source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the WHO lost control of the narrative of the name when even myself as a public health trainee started forgetting to use the determiner "the" when referring to "the coronavirus". But I think it was a stroke of marketing genius calling it COVID-19. As you know that leads to wiki confusion however... Wiki consensus is a lesson to be studied, but for now I truly hope there's a quick change! If you have any interest in my proposal I would spend a fair to large amount of time with yourself or any contributor determining consensus and making the page. Cheers, have a good day! --Almaty (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Why do we say the disease is the cause rather than the result? --Almaty (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Almaty a disease is the cause of an epidemic (an outbreak of the disease) rather than a result of an outbreak of the disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that's true but also the disease is caused by the epidemic. deferring to you of course hehe --Almaty (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Epidemics are of a disease they are not a cause of a disease. An epidemic occurs when lots of cases of a disease occur. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- point taken, thank you! I don't like "good hygiene" is there precedent? --Almaty (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Almaty yah neither do I. Just saying handwashing is likely enough IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The meetings I have had involve a collective seizure around N95 vs droplet precautions but I think this is what the world wants to know. We should say something about masks, or is WP:NODEADLINE --06:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Cool. Please do something about the main page still saying ongoing Wuhan outbreak. Its so 1992. Seriously. --Almaty (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support the name change, plus update that one spot... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for that, the main page was what was irking me the most (but oddly what made me start editing again). What do you think of the graph? I think it provides a different perspective, and I don't think that it's overly technical. An editor thought it is a misleading statistic, but I really don't think so. Would like help with sourcing the disclaimer if appropriate. Thanks again. --Almaty (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Almaty I am fine with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Doc James! New to here. I respect your profession & have read some of the articles you have contributed to. Just wanna have a chitchat. Do you know why the World Health Organization dropped the words "respiratory syndrome" for the disease caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus? Sounds pretty inconsistent to SARS and MERS. The same happened to Ebola as well, from "Hemorrhagic Fever" to "Virus Disease". It seems like they want all diseases to be more easily pronounced by laymen?
- Not sure what WHOs thinking is. I think coronavirus disease 2019 is reasonable, with the shortened form being COVID-19 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NO, I DID NOT! This is the second message I've received about edits made with my name that I did NOT do! See the end of Copied from ProjectMedical talkpage.... Who do I take this up with??? BTW no one has access to my computer or password, I shut it down when not using it and I don't use a mobile. Do you have any idea what gives? This started after the discussion with User talk:SpicyMilkBoy Cheers! Shir-El too 17:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hum. Here is the edit.
- It is from User:Shir-El too
- So either, you made that edit by mistake or someone has access to your account... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- IT IS NOT FROM ME!!! On top of that, someone or something just reactivated all the "Watch this page" function on pages I logged out of last night! HELP! Shir-El too 17:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Shir-El too Have you changed your password? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MJV479 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I apologize for seemingly flooding your talk page with notices but I believe what you did was not right. You did what I believe was a poor handling of the situation. MJV479 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it (and I'm novice but not naive) your reasons for an edit must be stated.
The fact that you deleted another contribution at the same time that you "updated a reference" and changed it's preceding wording is questionable, i.m.o.
Additionally, I must have failed to see where the electronic cigarette article was noted as a health or medical article, but if it is and you are implying by the note you left on my Talk page that the additional paragraph and reference (in a different section than the "updated" ref change you made) was not a "high-quality" source, then it would have been proper to note that, rather than omit mentioning it.
I see by the Electronic Cigarette edit history that between you and QuackGuru (who for all I know may be the same person) are the defacto editor-owners of most of the article. And, it's a total literary and organizational disaster, with NPOV issues.
Calling it a medical article for the sake of obfuscation when undoing citations is disingenuous, at best. I'm a retired technical writer & editor, so I'll be around quite a bit in an effort to restore my previous faith in WikiPedia, fwiw. Page monitoring against vandalism is one thing, Gatekeeping another.
- Medical content requires medical citations. Does not matter if the article is "medical" or not.
- Not every global jurisdiction, nor every person considers them to be Medical Devices. No doubt this is why the article appears so contentious, and suffers from the large numbers of edits. Please be so kind as to direct me to how Wikipedia suggests handling this, if you would. Is a vape device considered a Medical Device without nicotine or flavoring? Who makes "the call"?Jd4x4 (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to have evidence before you claim someone is a sock of another editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. That is why I stated it the way I did. "For all I know..". That was intended to alert you to how it may appear, outwardly. Apologies if I've offended you, I'm generally unaware of Wiki-jargon and it's connotations.Jd4x4 (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing my edits on the buprenorphine and the coronavirus articles. I just wanted to introduce myself as someone who also believes in reducing misinformation out there. While I can't watch articles daily, I hope to continue contributing to medical articles. That being said, if you feel there's something that's of urgency or prime importance, please feel free to reach out to me. I'm new but love to learn on the fly. Moksha88 (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Moksha88 sounds good :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
is it just me or is this guy shilling a bunch of entries for a particular paper/author? MartinezMD (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like they are promoting papers by Kamoru User:MartinezMD Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James. Thanks for your feedback. I went through the links you mentioned on my talk page, but they don't seem to provide sufficient clarity on which sources are reliable and which are not. In any case, on my talk page, I've replied to your message. I hope I'd be allowed to add facts about resting the eyes. I noticed someone had reverted your changes. Would just like to let you know that it wasn't me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navinwiki (talk • contribs) 14:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to use high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not write to Dr. David Levy at the Georgetown Lombardi Cancer Center and ask him what he and his co-authors of the "reality check" paper think of our e-cig article? dl777 at georgetown dot edu. EllenCT (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a primary source User:EllenCT Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a review: "To estimate youth and young adult vaping prevalence, we conducted a search of the literature through December 2017 using PubMed to find nationally representative surveys on youth and young adult vaping, particularly studies of trends. The search strategy consisted of the following keywords: (‘e-cigarette’ OR ‘electronic cigarette’ OR ‘vaporized nicotine’ OR ‘vaping’) AND (‘youth’ OR ‘young adult’ OR ‘adolescent’ OR ‘student’) AND (‘prevalence’ OR ‘use’). We also considered US surveys that collected information on tobacco use for either youth or young adults. We restrict the analyses to results from nationally representative surveys for youth and young adults aged 15 through 25, where smoking initiation and the progression to more established smoking generally occur." EllenCT (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not listed as a review by pubmed.[1] Or for that matter by the journal that published it.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- When you decide whether something is a systematic review, do you look at whether they performed a review systematically, or whether the PubMed data entry clerk checked the box? EllenCT (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So they looked for "publicly available" data and than analysed it. They did not do a review of exiting research on the topic.
- This does not justify removing National Academies of Sciences[3] or the Surgeon General's concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text of {{R from modification}} states:
Please note that there are are many more specific templates. Please use {{R from alternative spelling}} for...
The text of {{R from alternative spelling}} states (emphasis mine):
At present, {{R from alternative hyphenation}}, {{R from alternative punctuation}}, and {{R from alternative spacing}} all redirect to this template and feed into the same maintenance category. This is likely to change in the future, so please use the more specific template names.
What part of this did I misunderstand? Are all template redirects discouraged by some guideline documented elsewhere? Or perhaps was this not technically "hyphenation," and therefore I should have used {{R from alternative punctuation}}?
If the main problem was the edit summary, apologies for making it sound clickbaity; I will be more careful in the future. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:SoledadKabocha. Text on Wikipedia loads at different times which means buttons move around. So when you go to click one button you hit another by mistake.
- You will see that I reverted my mistake 12 minutes before you left this comment. Let me know if I missed anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Acknowledged, and I will be more diligent in checking such things in the future. Most of those 12 minutes were spent composing this post + taking care of other things IRL; I realize that this caused some unnecessary hassle. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak&type=revision&diff=942410259&oldid=942410169&diffmode=source
I'm fairly sure you and I agree here --Almaty (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Page move problem". Thank you. I also botched the ping. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does rubbing your eyes cause astigmatism
|
