User talk:Doc James: Difference between revisions
Line 406: | Line 406: | ||
: The number of contribs is irrelevant, and I've read the link provided. Moreover, my question speaks to the rationalization that some primary sources remain while mine were removed. The link ([[WP:MEDRS]]) does say to cite primary sources (peer-reviewed) with caution, and "generally" secondary sources are preferred. From the link: "edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal [[WP:WEIGHT]], should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge." In the case of my edits, all of this was done but the additions (only those citing primary sources) were removed without vetting the conclusions added. Nonetheless, all arguments that were made and cited with primary sources have also been supported in review articles that have also been cited. The inclusion of primary sources in that regard simply adds credibility to the argument, particularly given their sources.[[User:Agrizz|Agrizz]] ([[User talk:Agrizz|talk]]) 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
: The number of contribs is irrelevant, and I've read the link provided. Moreover, my question speaks to the rationalization that some primary sources remain while mine were removed. The link ([[WP:MEDRS]]) does say to cite primary sources (peer-reviewed) with caution, and "generally" secondary sources are preferred. From the link: "edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal [[WP:WEIGHT]], should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge." In the case of my edits, all of this was done but the additions (only those citing primary sources) were removed without vetting the conclusions added. Nonetheless, all arguments that were made and cited with primary sources have also been supported in review articles that have also been cited. The inclusion of primary sources in that regard simply adds credibility to the argument, particularly given their sources.[[User:Agrizz|Agrizz]] ([[User talk:Agrizz|talk]]) 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
::I only commented on your contribs, because you are making strong statements before you understand how things work here. It is very true that articles are uneven and we are constantly working to improve them - that's one of the key things you will find yourself doing if you become a regular editor. [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] is one of our kind of humorous essays that addresses the kind of argument you are making, which new editors make pretty frequently. If you want your content to "stick", please do find a secondary source that supports it. thanks! (if you want some insight into why MEDRS calls for secondary sources, please have a look at the intro (and more if you want, but the intro gets you there) to this essay i am drafting -- [[User:Jytdog/Why_MEDRS%3F|Why MEDRS?]] Hopefully that will help you make sense of why we care so much about secondary sources for content related to health) [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
::I only commented on your contribs, because you are making strong statements before you understand how things work here. It is very true that articles are uneven and we are constantly working to improve them - that's one of the key things you will find yourself doing if you become a regular editor. [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] is one of our kind of humorous essays that addresses the kind of argument you are making, which new editors make pretty frequently. If you want your content to "stick", please do find a secondary source that supports it. thanks! (if you want some insight into why MEDRS calls for secondary sources, please have a look at the intro (and more if you want, but the intro gets you there) to this essay i am drafting -- [[User:Jytdog/Why_MEDRS%3F|Why MEDRS?]] Hopefully that will help you make sense of why we care so much about secondary sources for content related to health) [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::I appreciate that you have given this a lot of time and effort. In a similar manor, I (and I assume many other editors that "go away", per the intro to your essay in progress) give our science a lot of time and effort as well. It is surprising to be told that the processes that go into obtaining a grant (the ultimate peer-review) on a topic, then publishing a paper through the rigor of peer-review yet again do not make a primary source at least somewhat credible in the eyes of wikipedia editors. Not that I'm picking a fight but rather a respectful discussion: a fallacy that I fear may be at play is that of seniority ([[genetic fallacy]]). You quickly dismiss mine and other contributors arguments because "we don't know how stuff is done here". I fundamentally understand that the need to vet sources and be sure that arguments are not "cherry picked". However, I feel that to omit contributions '''without first vetting them by simplified statements of conclusion''' (as the aforementioned link implies they would be) on the basis they come from primary sources is simply to adhere to old ways and, in effect, run off any willing contributors looking to better the information age by sharing otherwise esoteric information. Nonetheless, as stated in my last comment, all the content that I added came from secondary sources, I just included primary sources to enhance the credibility. Anything that was followed by a primary source was deleted and those that were followed by secondary sources were not. The irony is that I could rewrite the entire contribution, citing only the reviews, and I assume the edits would have been accepted. [[User:Agrizz|Agrizz]] ([[User talk:Agrizz|talk]]) 18:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:40, 26 April 2015
Doc James is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
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.
Class pageOur professor has not created a class page. We were instructed to create Wikipedia accounts and edit/create our respective pages.LithiumCHM333 (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Around 55 students, with about 5 per group. The topics covered are: Au Nanoparticles and Chemotherapy, Chemicals that are Both Toxic and Essential, Importance of Iron Homeostasis, Zinc Deficiency and Psychiatric Disorders, Evolution of Metal Ions in Biological Systems, Chromium Picolinate – Diabetes Treatment or Snake Oil? Hydrogenases as Catalysts for Fuel Cells, Li Treatment for Bipolar Disorder – Why Li and not Na or K? Ag Nanoparticles and Chemotherapy, Biotransformation of As, Zn and the Treatment of HIV–AIDS, LithiumCHM333 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I started looking through histories of pages related to the list above and, with some detective work, did manage to find the class, CHM333 at the University of Toronto Mississauga. I'm going to reach out to the instructor via email and will go over WikiEdu, support, class pages, and all the usual information. But I think what would help a lot is a phone call to go over MEDRS/MEDMOS and/or some of the specific issues students are running into. Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed), but also @Doc James if this is one WikiMed would be into supporting. PS: I stopped going through articles when I figured out which class it was, but these are also student articles: Chromium(III) picolinate, User:CHM333five/sandbox, and Gold Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll just comment one more time before this thread is archived: Never received a response from the prof, sorry to say. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Can you Please a look at this this .Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC) {{Maintained}} deletedSince you had contributed at some length to the the TFD, arguing for keep on the grounds of transparency (sort of my argument too), you might be interested to read that it was closed a few hours ago based on what seems like a very sketchy reading of the discussion. If you are interested, a discussion of the close has been stated on the closing admin's talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC) SwahiliHi Doc James, pls have a look at your sw:Majadiliano_ya_mtumiaji:Doc_James sw talk page (better to keep it there for other contributors to see it..) Kipala (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Familial hyperaldosteronism, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/familial-hyperaldosteronism. It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues. If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
reversion - [3]Hi Can you please explain why you reverted my edit. Normal procedure would be to delete it/edit it. I trust medical articles to be very well self-policed, so was amazed to even see that in the lead, and so decided to simpoly cl-span it for a more knowledgeable person to fix. As you should be well aware, usage of "some say" is amateur. If it was an oversight (using TW), then fine Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Translation attributionTemplate:Translation attribution has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC) COI ?This seems like a double COI to me (using students to cite one's own work) ... maybe you have another opinion? Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents#Above my pay scale This occurs so frequently with student editing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Recruitment for Wikipedian InterviewHello Doc James, We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card. The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future. You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu. We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email. Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgrobison (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC) The Signpost: 08 April 2015
General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes.Please read this notification carefully: General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. SPACKlick (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC) RevertDoc, would you please allow the article to be tagged for its problems?—S Marshall T/C 21:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, noticed that you are active at the moment - can you protect the above article as it is currently under attack. Regards Denisarona (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC) A beer for you!
Wasting vs Marasmus vs StuntingHi Doc. Marasmus and Wasting at face value appear to say a lot of the same things. As an example, the one says it is "severe malnutrion", the other "acute malnutrition", which comes to the same thing. If these are very different, is there a way of emphasising the differences? Then I also see that Atrophy says it is a form of Wasting. Is it not rather a form of Stunting? The picture of the two mice to me says "stunting", not "wasting". Thanks, as always. Regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
From User:SigismondoYes, I typically update pages about academics who have published books with us with bibliographical data of their newly published books. I also make some other edits where it seems appropriate i.e. my changes the "further reading" lists that you reverted. Is there any problem with this? Thank you. Posted by User:Sigismondo.
Doc, a matter for your attention pleaseI have left a note at User_talk:Mikael_Häggström#Respectfully.2C_please_note regarding the two very large tables that appear at the Pathogenic bacteria article. As an ID discovery guy, I love to see such content, but the fact that it is take wholesale from 21 pages in the indicated Lippincott medical text—essentially no other sources for the two large tables—indicates to me that by formal definition it is plagiarised (too much factual content directly transferred to be in compliance with fair use). I call this to your attention as one who has already queried this editor regarding his too weakly paraphrasing text from a primary source, and as one very experienced with the limits of what is permissible here. I thought it best to deal with this before Lippincott discovers and weighs in. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Moonriddengirl is the expert User:Leprof 7272. I do not know the answer when it comes to a data filled table. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Preeclampsia - removal of reference to IgA NephropathyJust wondering your rationale for removing the reference to IgA Nephropathy. Reasearch99 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
ReferencesHi, Doc james. Thanks for your help. I need it! About my edit on Tourette syndrome (18:21, 2 February 2015), removed because "case study, please see WP:MEDRS", I've been reading the link Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). It says: "Primary sources should generally not be used for health related content, because the primary biomedical literature is exploratory and not reliable - any given primary source may be contradicted by another, and the Wikipedia community relies on the guidance of expert reviews, and statements of major medical and scientific bodies, to provide guidance on any given issue. The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see: Wikipedia:No original research)." I understand that there are certain cases where primary sources can be used if certain requirements are met. "A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field—especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments—is that they are often not replicable[2][3] and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable content about health." This is not the case. This is not an in vitro test nor a drug experiment. "Peer-reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles. They contain a mixture of primary and secondary sources." The reference I cited ("Tourette Syndrome and Non-Coeliac Gluten Sensitivity. Clinical Remission with a Gluten-Free Diet: A Description Case")is published at International Journal of Sleep Disorders and Therapy. It is a prestigious and peer reviewed publication. See: http://internationalscholarsjournals.org/journal/ijsdt "International Journal of Sleep Disorders and Therapy editorial office policy requires that each manuscript be reviewed by individuals who are highly experienced and recognized in the particular field of the submitted manuscript." I conclude that modifying the text, it is acceptable editing. See my new edit, please, and tell me if it's ok: 19:02, 15 April 2015. Thanks!--Raihop (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 April 2015
A Disruptive EditorYou may want to have a look at this fellow's contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.76.72.117 User is violating WP:NPA and edit warring policies for starters. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Heading
yes appears one lemon is enough, but need to find a ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Could you take a look. Probably worth an article, but I'm concerned with the misleading impression given by the emphasis on the diseases for which it has not yet been clinically tested. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC) very old drugs, abandoned drugsquestion for you and any watchers, and you too DGG. do you know any good sources for information about old drugs, and especially about abandoned drugs? I came across Imolamine and Oxolamine (and there are a bunch of others) in various ways, that i cannot find sources for. i am not sure these drugs are even used or not. using the electronic resources of a medical college library and my friend google (including google books) i find almost nothing on these. ditto searching FDA, WHO, EMEA.. what sources do you know of, that have good information on very old drugs, and especially on abandoned (not necessarily withdrawn for safety) drugs? more generally, i know lots about how drugs come to market but know so little about how they leave it, and am always looking for the stories of drugs' demises. (i have worked on List of withdrawn drugs which is also interesting to me) Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 20:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Jytdog Do you know anyone who works at the NHS? They should be able to help you access the older versions. I only have copies of newer versions released after 2007. -A1candidate 16:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Reference QuestionThis is the first source I cited for the Penn state study http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2010/02/theory-based-abstinence-education/ isn't Penn Medicine a medical review journal of Penn State therefore making me not violate WP:MEDRS? I'm a novel editor at best, so I seriously do not understand how this cite was wrong or popular press? John D. Rockerduck (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
So would this be a high quality secondary source? http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=382724John D. Rockerduck (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC) (talk page stalker) John D. Rockerduck please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Resources for how to find review articles. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Poorly Reffed Content?Greetings, DocJames -- just curious about your edit with remarks of "Poorly Reffed Content" in regards to the cite from Neuromodulation, which is the pre-eminent publication on Clinical Neurology. What is the issue at-hand for inclusion of relevant articles from that publication in particular? Thanks Williamharris20 (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Nicotine vs. Pro-vitamin B3Nicotine just fits the definition of a pro-vitamin and, as such, I edited the article on Nicotine to emphasize the fact. I did it after mentioning the fact in the Talk section, first. It was edited out. Was it because of the political incorrectness of the statement/observation? I'm not a doctor, but, it seems to me that nicotine is actually good for people. All the bad stuff about smoking is, as far as I can tell, caused by smoke inhalation. Since e-cigs are becoming so popular, maybe it's not such a bad idea to make the distinction between nicotine and the rest of the stuff in cigarettes! Don't you agree? Should you feel like replying to this note, could you, please, reply to danleonida@yahoo.com since I am an infrequent visitor of the wiki talk sections (daily visitor of wiki articles, though!) I regard Wikipedia not as another good website, but as an actual human achievement! We'll probably agree on that one, so let's not spoil it! -dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danleonida (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
CommentWhich references did not support the content in question? Please let me know so I can fix them. It was not made by a spam bot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Bloome (talk • contribs) 06:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Job board take down accounts?I've found some people on Elance and oDesk infringing the Terms of Service. What do I do? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Saffron FARHey, Doc (and @Jytdog: @Zad68:); see Saffron#Biomedical research. I've listed some sources at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Saffron/archive1 that need to be looked at, but I don't have full text. I've seen in the past that lower quality journals are sometimes used to cite this kind of text, so also wish someone could take a closer look at what is there now. Saffron was once an excellent FA, but the main writer moved on years ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC) My previous edit to the article 'condom'.Is the source i cited a reliable one, since it appears to be a primary source?Joey13952 alternate account (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You saw the source, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC) The Signpost: 22 April 2015
your opinion/stance/position etc. on sources known to have an an agenda or bias?First off, thanks for the hints and suggestions on how I can become a better editor, they are appreciated. My query relates to the whole e-cig safety drama that seems to be an ongoing train wreck of bias and lack of WP:NPOV. I have noted that there are sources cited from "Tobacco control" related journals with authors that have been found by their peers to be less than rigorous when it comes to faithfully reporting the outcomes of their own research. In what is often referred to as the "Grana 2014" study the bulk of the citations relate to health effects of smoking. 12/126 are from a combination of the authors previous studies, there are "opinion" pieces cited and reports or "statements" that at least one of the study authors contributed to. When the sources cited are taken into account the "Grana 2014" study begins to look more and more like a case of confirmatory bias. Most prople interested in the subject of e-cigarettes are aware of the authors known for this behaviour and cherry picking. It seems that QG knows, but as his agenda reflects those of Glantz, Grana, Daube, Goniewicz et al s/he defends the citing of their studies until all other editors give up in disgust. Sorry for the rant, frustrated and annoyed. Time to walk away. Thanks for reading Lancer2K (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC) WHODoc, do you really want generally to use WHO? [16] Because that will turn Tourette into "Combined vocal and multiple motor tic disorder [de la Tourette]", which is used by practically ... no one. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you for UnblockingI have one question is it right to add information from any sources(exp. blog) by typing in own words 2. how to become an admintsrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnachaitan (talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Links to WikidataI am inserting wikidata links at the ends of articles because it facilitates corroboration between the different language wikis. It will eventually be a location where articles on the same topic can all be compared, references shared, information exchanged. It can only result in better articles and access to more information on a topic that is published in another language. Please don't remove the Wikidata links, I'm part of the project and trying to improve its content. Removing the wikidata links will not help accomplish the information sharing. With the Very Best of Regards, Bfpage |leave a message 00:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC) facial esthetics.the book is in prepublication—it's a collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians and researchers being compiled by len tolstunov, dds, ddmd, who's an oral and maxillofacial surgeon and asst clinical prof at hop/ucsf schools of dentistry. i can also site this article, O. Bahat, et al, Lifelong Craniofacial Growth and the Implications for Osseointegrated Implants, Intl Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2013, 199.188.193.216 (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC) facial estheticsplease replace the text with the new article cited. thank you.199.188.193.216 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Nicotine/Cotinine page editsJust curious what the rationale is to delete contributions and thus omit facts that were cited from peer-reviewed scientific articles published in reputable scientific journals? The argument for their deletion was apparently that they were not "highly reputable". Furthermore, numerous citations of this kind were already present and remain on the nicotine and cotinine pages, among hundreds if not thousands of others. Wikipedia stands to lose quite a bit of credibility if modern day findings can no longer be cited unless or until they are in a review. Even more credibility is lost when a experienced scientist on a topic cannot contribute to the edits based on arbitrary and misguided policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrizz (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
|