User talk:Doc James

We have an offline version of our healthcare content. Download the app and access all this content when there's no Internet. (other languages)

 Translation
Main page Those Involved
(sign up) Newsletter 

Please click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online. Advice on improving our recommending tool Hi Doc James, Hope you are doing well! Thank you for using our tool, and giving us feedback for improvement. We've made some improvements, and are preparing to send another round of recommendations for your project. But before that, we are considering two possible factors to implement into our algorithms potentially, and wonder what's your opinion on them. 1. Small project promotion. An editor who has a wide range of subject interest can be recommended to multiple projects according to our current algorithms. When this happens, do you think it matters to make choices among those projects, i.e., should we prioritize on those smaller projects, just randomly choose one project, or do you have other thoughts? 2. Female editor promotion. Gender imbalance has been a long-term issue in Wikipedia which consequently caused the uncoverage of many female related topics. What do you think about the idea of promoting more female editors in the recommendation list? Bobo.03 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Few thoughts. Many projects are inactive. It is best to recommend people to active projects. With respect to gender, I am not sure what would be the best idea. Happy to have women recommended to WPMED. Expecially as most graduating physicians are now women. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Got it. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC) You mistakenly reverted my Endometriosis edit! Your endometriosis article shows 10.8 million as the world prevalence for endometriosis. That CANNOT be correct. Your comment was "nope" which shows that you did not even read the next sentence in your version of the article stating that 6-10% of women have this condition. But there are about 7.4 billion people in the world. Therefore about 3.5 billion are female. If 75 percent of those are past the menarche, there are about 2.7 billion susceptible women on the planet. 6 percent of those would amount to 162 million cases. Please restore my changes and pay more attention before you revert an edit! "Nope" is not research! Dratman (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Did you read the reference in question? Did you look at the talk page? Yes different sources come to different conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Yes I checked the reference! Did you read what I wrote here? 10.8 million LOGICALLY CANNOT BE CORRECT! "Different sources come to different conclusions? Did you look at multplying 6 percent time 2.7 billion women past the menarche worldwide? What is your problem with this simple correction? Wikiopedia is not your playground -- it is a collaborative worldwide effort of hundreds of thousands of editors. I have made 2,387 edits since 2004. Arrogance is not a good characteristic in an encyclopedia editor -- even if it might sometimes be helpful when you are working in the ER. Dratman (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC) We summarize what high quality references say. We have done that here. What you added was wrong / not supported by the reference that was behind the text in question. The Global Burden of Disease Study which was published in the Lancet in 2016 is a really good source. If you disagree with the conclusions published by the GBD, write to the Lancet and explain why. They come out with updates every couple of years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Even if we use math and think something is wrong we need to follow the sources (and this is a good one). Else it is own research and we do not do that on wikipedia. Best regards Adville (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC) I am very familiar with the way Wikipedia handles verifiability, and also with the unsuitability of own research here. Proceeding in that vein, attempting to check your reference, I am unable to find any specific information about endometriosis in the reference you cite. Kindly make available a PDF of the page containing the endometriosis statistic on which you rely, so I (and others reading this) can see it. Also -- one question: who is "we"? Wikipedia is edited by individuals. If you are a group, please identify it as such. Dratman (talk) "We" are "you and me"... we all who edits here. Adville (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Thank you for including me in that we, but that is not necessary. I will speak for myself. So, are you and Doc James somehow collaborating here? Dratman (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Nope. I have his disc. On my watchlist. I edit a lot about medical articles mostly on svwp. So I saw this discussion and answered to explain for you. When writing about medicine it is very important to have good sources. Thats all. Best regards Adville (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC) In this case the source (if there really is a reference to endometriosis there) is incorrect. Think about that, and take a look at this web item: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/19/this-neglected-disease-is-a-hidden-drain-on-womens-success.html A $119 billion drag on women in the workplace. 7:03 AM ET Thu, 19 May 2016 | 03:01 There's a little-known but extremely common disease afflicting 1 in every 10 women in the United States and costing the nation an estimated $119 billion annually. Many women struggle in silence, not even knowing they have it. The disorder is known as endometriosis and can affect women of all ages. Ten percent of half the US population would be 0.1 x 320000000 * 0.5 = 16 million women in the US alone! But the figure Dr. James insists on continuing to use in Wikipedia is 10.8 million worldwide! Here is another sentence in the current Wikipedia article: It may affect more than 11% of American women between 15 and 44. And now compare that with the sentence I edited (reverted by Dr. James) and the sentence immediately after it: Endometriosis was estimated to affect 10.8 million globally in 2015. Another estimate states about 6–10% of women are affected. Are you beginning to see the pattern here? 10.8 million globally is clearly incorrect. 10.8 million might be a reasonable (possibly low) estimate for the US alone. And what about this? The point prevalence of endometriosis [n = 6146, mean age 40.4 ± 8.0 years (SD)] was 10.8 per 1000 (95% CI 10.5-11.0). Women aged 40-44 years had the highest prevalence rate of 18.6 per 1000 (95% CI 17.7-19.5). BJOG. 2018 Jan;125(1):55-62. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14711. Epub 2017 Jun 14. Epidemiology of endometriosis: a large population-based database study from a healthcare provider with 2 million members. Eisenberg VH1,2, Weil C1, Chodick G1,2, Shalev V1,2. 10.8 per thousand women worldwide would be about (7.4 billion/2) x (10.8/1000) = about 39 million women worldwide -- much lower than some other credible estimates worldwide, but still almost four times the 10.8 million cases worldwide as the current article claims. Dratman (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC) I linked to the pdf on the talk page before the discussion here began.[1] Do a control f "type in endometriosis". The page number in the pdf is 1570. Here is the pdf again[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – February 2018 News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018). Administrator changes None Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter Guideline and policy news An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF. Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option. Technical news A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries. Arbitration The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC) Deletion of lipid peroxidation You deleted the paragraph about lipid peroxidation from Atherosclerosis#Calcification_and_lipids twice with a comment nothing but "poor source". Please explain why do you think that an article in Proc Natl Acad Sci 1984 with hundreds of citations, a review from Physiol Rev and an editorial from Atheroscrlerosis are not compliant with WP:MEDRES. 92.0.216.66 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC) The first source is a primary source from the 1980s[3] (need recent reviews) The second source is a review which is better and from 2004.[4] Lots of more recent reviews based on higher quality evidence which have found no benefit from antioxidants in atherosclerosis The final ref is an editorial not a review[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC) Here it says "disappointing results of antioxidant therapy for cardiovascular risk factors in large-scale long-term randomised controlled trials"[6] (2015 review) Here it says "a number of randomized trials on the use of selected antioxidants as primary or secondary prevention strategies to decrease cardiac risk... many of these studies reported disappointing results with little or no observed risk reduction in antioxidant-treated patients"[7] (2015 review) So this "In the experimental setup, oxidative damage to lipids in atherosclerosis can be prevented by antioxidants" by the 2004 ref is no longer really supported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC) You are right about the antioxidants, it is better to remove them. As for PUFAs, they are not in clinical trials yet, so their place should be in the Research section. I added a reference to the original paper that has the details and left the editorial as a verifying secondary source. Also, I removed a senseless sentence from the end of the section. Frankly, the whole section is quite a mess – it would be nice if you would restructure it and remove/challenge the unsourced sentences.92.0.216.66 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC) Please clean the whole section, not just my editing, which is sourced in accordance with WP:MEDRES (even it does not match your understanding of WP:MEDRES). There are some really poor sources or no sources at all. Otherwise I take it personally. 92.0.216.66 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC) You are wanting WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC) The Signpost: 5 February 2018 Op-ed: Do editors have the right to be forgotten? Featured content: Wars, sieges, disasters and everything black possible Recent research: Automated Q&A from Wikipedia articles; Who succeeds in talk page discussions? Blog: New monthly dataset shows where people fall into Wikipedia rabbit holes Interview: Interview with The Rambling Man, Wikipedia's top contributor of Featured Lists Traffic report: TV, death, sports, and doodles Special report: Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative Arbitration report: New cases requested for inter-editor hostility and other collaboration issues In the media: Solving crime; editing out violence allegations Humour: You really are in Wonderland * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC) COI Dear James, Thank you for alerting me to a potential Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issue for Philip I. Murray. I have made a disclosure in the talk page regarding connection and have clarified that there is no financial /paid for editing disclosure to make. Is there anything further I need to do? Best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamdasm (talk • contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC) What is your relationship to this work collegues user:shamdasm?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC) We work within a University-affiliated research group. Shamdasm (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Check my edit Hi, i uploaded new gif for nystagmus here, please check it.--Mr.Polaz (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC) The prior image was more typical. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Lyme Disease Transmission Hi, I started a discussion about Lyme Disease Transmission on the Talk page. It would be great to get your input here so that we can develop a more complete section about the Transmission of Lyme. Cxbrx (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Sure thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Chronic lymphocytic leukemia Hi, thank you for improving my contribution to the CLL article. It looks great. When I wrote my contribution to the article, I was very careful to observe the following: I didn't write anything that isn't true I made sure every single claim was supported by a source I didn't use any unreliable sources If you look at my edit, you can see that I was very careful. I read the template that you left on my talk page, and it sounds a bit like you're talking to somebody who carelessly wrote dangerous false claims about a cure for AIDS citing a twitter post by Justin Bieber. I apologise in advance if that wasn't your intention. Despite that, I read the description of primary, secondary and tertiary sources that you told me to read. And from the 5 reliable sources that I cited in my paragraph, you left one of them. According to the principles that you're trying to teach me, would you mind explaining why that one source is more appropriate than the other 4? Just so I know for the future. If you could please reply here to keep all the conversation in one place that'd be great. Thanks! DrVogel (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Check article for copyright material? Comment Hi James, Is there a way to check an article for copyright material? While performing a Cochrane update, I came across quite a bit of content copied directly from the full-text of the review. Maybe worthwhile checking the rest of the article as I may have missed some. Rectal prolapse Thanks! Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Deletion of Skinny_Mobile The Skinny Mobile page was deleted on the 25th July '17, for the reasons that there were undisclosed paid edits made by Highbrows Engineering & Technologies. Unfortunately Skinny Mobile previously had their organic search run through a search agency who paid for these changes as part of their ongoing work with Skinny Mobile - the Skinny Mobile company team wasn't aware of the activity and were really disappointed to have their Wikipedia page removed for activity they weren't aware of. Skinny Mobile is no longer working with the company who paid for these edits. Can you let me know what steps we can take to get this page un-deleted? I'm unsure of what content there was on the page whilst it was live, so I will provide a small amount of background incase it hasn't already been shared. Skinny Mobile is a telecommunications company owned by Spark NZ - you will see a reference to Skinny Mobile here under the section [regulation and company restructuring]. You can find a link to the primary website here. Skinny has been awarded "Most Satisfied Customers" for New Zealand Prepaid Phone Plan Providers based on the 2015 - 2017 Canstar Blue ratings. Please let me know what other information might be helpful for you. Link to the deletion archives: https://en.wikipedia.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Skinny_Mobile&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype Katiaducker (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)