Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

take a look at the recent edits to the quinolone page

Looks like all our work is down the drain again. Check out the recent edits on the quinolone articles. davidtfull

Do not keep an eye on it anymore.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Goofy New Section in "Carcinoma" Article

Hi Doc:

Hope things are well with you. I'm back from my hyphen-related emotional breakdown :-O

When you get a sec, take a look at the goofy "Differentiated Carcinoma" section that's been added to the end of carcinoma. I'm planning on spending some time seriously "reworking" this article in coming days, but have not yet encountered a situation such as this ... meaning a large section that someone has probably put a lot of time into, and that contains SOME useful stuff, but most of which is ... how can I put this ... ummm, really horribly stinky?

Your advice would be appreciated. If I was making the call, I'd just blank the whole dreadful section and work what little useful/correct stuff is there into other places. However, I don't want to tick anyone off either, especially after all the work they did. What do you think?

Also, I *know* the article also needs a LOT of citations, and I'll definitely do that, and will try the DiBerri gizmo you gave me when I do. Let me know your thoughts when you can, and thanks again for all you do.

Best regards from your Wikibuddy: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay will do when I get home.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research

Hi Doc James/Archive 18,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions

Stop edit-warring at abortion. The article is subject to sanctions, and 1RR applies, as you know very well. Although a bunch of admins and apparently even arbitrators have in the past overlooked your blatant disregard for Wikipedia rules, and instead sanctioned those who have tried in good faith to stop you, your luck may eventually run out. Try being neutral, follow the rules like everyone else is required to do, and stop your POV-pushing and edit-warring. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks will keep that in mind. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Undo on breast cancer?

Why would you undo the palliative care section I added to breast cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syleth (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The text does not specifically refer to breast cancer but is more about palliative care in general.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Palliative care sections in cancer

Hey, just saw your page. You're changing my edits on all the cancer pages. I'm a certified Internist trained in the US and I've now completed a fellowship in hospice and palliate care. I'm an expert on the subject, and educating patients how palliative care can be helpful in cancers is a huge issue. If you have a problem with my content edit it, but to remove it entirely for no apparent reason? I have a major issue with that and want an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syleth (talk • contribs) 00:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone is required to provide reliable review articles as references even experts. The ref added is primary research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Palliative care sections in cancer

Thanks for the link, I'll look through there and adjust. I seem to have given too much info on the Harvard study, I'll change patients to person/individual and move the section to treatment (where there is a treatment section). Any other tips so we aren't constantly undoing each others work? Should I add more links to support the lowered depression, improved symptoms, etc? When looking at other sections and other subjects it doesn't seem people are linking nearly that much, nor do I think any of those are a reach and are pretty well accepted in the medical community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syleth (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Every blue little number is a reference. Feel free to email me and I would be happy to discuss things further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Confused, but now clear

I saw Jmh649 in the edits, but saw Doc James as the signature on a couple of discussions. Now I understand. BTW, I'm highly annoyed by all the palliative care additions. Wasted my evening, so I'm glad you jumped in on a few. Palliative care deserves one sentence, if that, on any cancer article. IMHO. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes my user name / tag confuses some people. We do need more medical editors. I was clueless when I first started. Hopefully this person will stay involved.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Good Job. — Bryan Anderson (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Patient" is now a perjorative?

News to me. I don't mind at all being called a patient when I'm dealing with a doctor, and am surprised very many other people are. (I'm sure there will always be a few.)

Could you please point me to where the alleged consensus was reached that Wikipedia would avoid the term? I find no such discussion at either the Metformin page or on the general Wikipedia manual of style page.

I find it horribly stilted to dance around the word "patient" in every medical article that appears in Wikipedia. It smacks of political correctness, frankly. --Yaush (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We are writing for a general audience, not physicians or patients. Some people have these conditions and never see a doctor and thus never become patients thus the more open wording. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Metformin is available without a prescription in Canada? --Yaush (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No but it would be some places in the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The word "patient" is listed as one of the warning signs in WP:MEDMOS that you (as writer) might be making assumptions about the audience or the group of people the article is talking about. It isn't necessarily pejorative or banned but it would typically be used far less in a general encyclopaedia than in our sources, which are usually written for and by doctors. One must also be very careful no to confuse findings about "patients" with findings about "people with X", for not all "people with X" may be currently seeing a doctor about X so the former group may have a different profile to the latter. With chronic conditions, such as epilepsy say, viewing people with the condition as "patients" rather than "people" has a depersonalising effect. The doctor-patient relationship is not equal: one has the authority and one has a need; it may be unhelpful to remind folk of that.
The Metformin article has a number of problems IMO, chief of which it spends too much time talking about studies. Naturally the people enrolled in studies of a drug's effects are patients, as are those taking a prescription medication--as you point out. For this reason, when discussing the participants in a study or when discussing people taking a prescription medication, I'm OK with the use of "patient". If we are discussing people with diabetes or who are overweight, we must not assume they are "patients". I'd expect the word "patient" to be used much less in a disease-article than a drug-article. I'd also expect the "patient" word to be used much less if the article concentrated on general facts (which need secondary sources) rather than study findings (which the reader is left to assume are generally important, but may not be).
Perhaps a few of the uses of "patient" can be restored, especially if it makes the text less "stilted", as Yaush feels? -- Colin°Talk 18:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
That seems reasonable.--Yaush (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, tried to leave a message under the last section so I wasn't opening whole new ones. I tried to edit, thinking it might be there, but then it just looked like you said it and so I deleted it. I'm at work so don't have long but I'll research that later. Just wanted to say thank you and that I appreciate your help so far. I had absolutely no idea editing wikipedia was so involved and regulated, should've done a little more homework before I started, but I'm learning my lesson now :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syleth (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Milestone: A Barnstar for You

Hi Doc:

I have reached a (very minor) milestone here, to wit: this edit to your Talk Page is my 1,000th here on Wikipedia!

I briefly considered using this quasi-exciting opportunity to post yet another blatantly idiotic, horribly nasty, yet supremely colorful personal attack on the Kw*m*k*g*m* guy who TRASHED most of the cancer articles ... however, that would be contrary to Doctor's orders :-O

Therefore, on this marginally momentous occasion, I instead have decided to award you this "Civility" Barnstar, along with my personal thanks for your kindness.

Civility Award
To Doc James, for the behavioral lessons he's taught me, and for preventing me from getting blocked for up to 1000 years Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Cliff Great that you are sticking it out... :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Searching PubMed to get PMID values

Where (if anywhere) should the note Searching PubMed to get PMID values on my talk page go, if you think it is useful? (Excerpts from the Entrez documentation with some examples).

RDBrown (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Common misconceptions

Hi James. Regarding common misconceptions, does either source for the cracking knuckles item identify this as a common misconception, or a very equivalent wording? There has been a very long problem with that article of people adding misconceptions with no evidence that it is common except their own opinion. Many, many items have been removed because, even though it is a misconception, the misconception is not identified as common by a reliable source. But I don't want to remove yours if I don't know what's in the sources. See the four criteria that were implemented when you click "Edit". Thanks. Cresix (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks will look into it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"Common urban legend" is good enough for me. Many thanks. Cresix (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

for checking the source on the diet claims at Neuropathic pain, James. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

krogoth68

Hi, editing in Alopecia with the healthy hair tonic, here is different treatments to alopecia patients that only have synthetic options avalible to them. A natural approach is one you do not want in wikipedia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.135.212 (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Would need a reliable source that shows it is effective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No idea where to post this: re: new ACLS guidelines

Hi - no idea where to post this, site is confusing! ACLS guidelines have recently been changed, and I did notice that the PEA guidelines on Wiki have been updated - but didn't see the update to CPR, asystole, and a couple others. Any news to when the update will come? Anisarit (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of the AHA 2010 update to ACLS. They where published in circulation in Oct 2010. The Wiki page on CPR does reflect the new guidelines. Wikipedia is however written completely by volunteers. If you are interested in making sure that the other pages you mention reflect the new literature that would be great. If you need any help accesses the articles by the AHA let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Image size

Hello,

I do acknowledge that we agreed to keep images at default size wherever possible based on the layout and context of the article. I didn't really consider that images with a reduced resolution would be questionable, as it is the first time that I've found it to be befitting the context of an article. I do agree with what was aforementioned, the complication of the Wikipedia text and image layout differs from browser to browser, and screen to screen. The article layout on my user interface may look completely different to that on another users computer, excluding iPod's and phones, etc. which have a mobile feature view. Even when switching from Chrome to Internet Explorer on the same computer, the layout changes the text and images significantly. I did know about this, but you tend to forget about it when exclusively editing with one screen and browser. In conclusion, the main thing is the layout isn't as important as the content, the images aren't as important as the text, and the image default size (not smaller or larger) will be used wherever possible, with an edit summary for non-obvious resizing.

Thanks. Editor182 (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution

Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt

Hi! This is the last call for signing on for a Wikipedia Ambassador hooded sweatshirt (in case you missed the earlier message in one of the program newsletters about it). If you would like one, please email me with your name, mailing address, and (US) sweatshirt size. We have a limited number left, so it will be first-come, first-served. (If more than one size would work for you, note that as well.)

Cheers, Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sage. Only had limited involvement. I am sure there are others who are more deserving. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dengue (and rhabdo too)

Hi James. I was wondering whether you were still interested in taking dengue fever to FAC. I still have all the relevant papers at hand (and the not-so relevant ones also). There is a possibility of getting some offline feedback from tropical medicine physicians, if that's something you think might help.

Anycase, I have nominated rhabdomyolysis for FAC (here), and was wondering if you had anything to say on that one. Once I'm done with that, we could do the dengue one. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no time to review the new contributions to dengue fever, but I think ProfessorAM (talk · contribs) has just created some work for us. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes sure would be interested in pushing for FA. Let me look at it again. A important disease well deserving of being on the front page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Unblocking of Thonos

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have responded there, and also made a comment relating to it at User talk:Thonos. (I have also extended my response on my talk page, so even if you have already seen the first version of that response you may like to look again.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey

Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Brittle diabetes merged to Diabetes mellitus type 1

Hello. As the decision was merge, shouldn't the content be added as a section to the destination article? [1] Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes merged. There was almost no WP:MEDRS compliant resources.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
But replacing the content with a redirect is not a merge. Merging means moving the content into the destination article. Yet none of the content was added to Diabetes mellitus type 1. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Was merged to diabetes mellitus Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I was looking at the edit summary "...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittle diabetes closed as merge to Diabetes mellitus type 1)...". As you just stated, the surviving content actually landed at Diabetes mellitus. Case closed. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Again?

Hey Doc:

I noticed a message you left User:Kwami about hyphens. Has he been up to messing around with cancer articles again? He was warned by the honchos NOT to do that, and HE AGREED TO. God, this dude is a nightmare! Let me know whats up, if you would. If I have to go through all this again, I may just quit. This is nuts.

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc ...

Hey Doc - no doubt in my mind you are one of the NICEST guy (and one of the hardest working) here on Wikipedia. I want badly to report him to User:Georgewilliamherbert, who was the honcho who told him not to do those any more, and Kwami agreed.

Now he's doing it AGAIN, and you KNOW as well as I do that he will continue to do so, and will never quit. What should I do? He's got me about ready to quit and go to SmartGeek instead, but I don't WANT to. He is a menace, in my mind. Any opinion? Or is it a no-no for you to say that? Its come to the point where I'm beginning to wonder if its even worth it to work on them and then have someone, well, "Vandalize" them repeatedly, if that is a proper word to use.

Best: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As a gesture of friendship to you for all you have done for me, I will do just that. Thanks for being so nice. I know this sounds kind of silly, but its true - he has gotten me to the point where this is MUCH less fun, and I get mad every time I get on here. I have been in a couple trial for the last few weeks, so haven't been very productive, but if I could get his stuff "cured", I will write some AWESOME articles in coming months and years. Thanks again very much, and so sorry for the hassle.
Your Wikifriend:
Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: References

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Singularity42's talk page.
Message added Singularity42 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks Again, Doc

Kwami generously agreed (again) to stop the hyphenation stuff after your most recent intervention. I left him a very nice note of appreciation.

Also, per your request, I am doing the following right now:

Narrowing my current watch list to reflect (almost) exclusively "cancer pages";
Searching for "-cell carcinoma", "-cell sarcoma", "-cell lymphoma", and adding all those pages to my list so as to be able to monitor them easier and - hopefully - "take over for you". If you can think of anything else I can do that would help, let me know.

Again, I'm sorry to bother you so much - trust me, I've hated all this as badly as you have!

Very warmest thanks for your concern and assistance: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Image

You do not have consensus for inclusion. Badger Drink (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

E-mail

Hey Doc:

Per your suggestion I tried ONCE AGAIN to turn on my e-mail here. I've tried 20 times since I've been here and it won't let me for some reason. Will keep trying, but in case I can't, its uploadvirus@yahoo.com or verityandassociates@yahoo.com or evidentlegalservices@gmail.com. Take your pick and lemme know which one you like. LOL!

I also will watch Talk Medicine.

Regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Focal infection theory

Sorry been busy and didn't get back to you as soon as I would have liked. You noted you don't do biographies but I noticed you didn't talk about the Focal infection theory article either. In particular I want to add the following to that article:


In a 1925 Journal of the American Medical Association article Price acknowledged that more than a simple association of dental infection and degenerative disease in the same patent or the results of test animals was needed to demonstrate a relationship an and summarized new data developed in his research regarding focal infection to systemic disease using structural changes and chances body serums serologic while referring back to his 1923 work.(Price, Weston A. (1925) "Dental Infections and related Degenerative Diseases" J Am Med Assoc 1925;84(4):254-261.)((1925) The American dental surgeon: Volume 46; American Academy of Restorative Dentistry Page 18)(Crowe, Henry Warren; Herbert George Franking (1927) Bacteriology & surgery of chronic arthritis and rheumatism "Etiology Continued : Dental Infections And Degenerative Diseases - A Review And Commentary" Oxford university press pg 23-32)

(...)

In 1939 in his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration Weston Price stated "(i)n my search for the cause of degeneration of the human face and the dental organs I have been unable to find an approach to the problem through the study of affected individuals and diseased tissues. In my two volume work on "Dental Infections," Volume I, entitled "Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic," and Volume II, entitled "Dental Infections and the Degenerative Diseases," I reviewed at length the researches that I had conducted to throw light on this problem. The evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues, but that the undesirable conditions were the result of the absence of something, rather than of the presence of something." and later in that same volume also stated "(i)t is very important that in the consideration of the dental caries problem it shall be kept in mind continually, that it is only one of a large group of symptoms of modern physical degeneration and when teeth are decaying other things are going wrong in the body. Fluorine treatment, like dental extractions, cannot be a panacea for dental caries."


Please note all these come from peer reviewed sources (Nutrition and Physical Degeneration was published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers.) but I was wondering if you knew of other sources that might help on the history of Focal infection theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Google scholar has a fair bit of stuff here http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Focal+infection+theory%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 as dose google books http://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22Focal+infection+theory%22&btnG=Search+Books Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully this will help clear up the history section of the article which to quite honestly is a mess because the few sources we currently contradict each other regarding when and to what degree focal infection theory fell out of favor.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Brain loss found in the Ho 2011 study of neuroleptica treatment

Hi James, Why did you revert my change of

"In Feb. 2011, a loss of brain tissue, possibly comparable in size to that of the monkey studies below, but slower, was reported in schizophrenics treated with antipsychotics."

to

"In Feb. 2011, a minor loss of brain tissue was reported in schizophrenics treated with antipsychotics."


I can't see that the brain tissue loss is minor. It is comparable to what was found in the monkey studies with HAL/OLZ in 2005. (If you take doses and the fact that things happens faster in monkeys in accounts.)


The notion of "minor loss of brain tissue" seems grossly misleading here. Can you please propose a better variant if you do not like my suggestion?


Kind regards, nopedia Nopedia (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The ref says "The use of antipsychotic drugs to treat schizophrenia is associated with the loss of a small but measurable amount of brain tissue, a new study finds." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


I am not able to find the text above. Where is it? I am aware that the conclusion in the abstract is very "mild". However there is nothing in the article that says that not all the brain tissue loss may come from antipsychotics. You may think the statistical correction for illness severity can lead to this conclusion. However it can not since the antipsychotics is given exactly for treating the illness. So illness severity and dosage are not independent variables. All the statistical correction can lead to is to say: "Whatever we try this amount of loss must come from antipsychotics. The rest of the loss might also come from treatment but we are not absolutely totally sure of this now. And we will not be allowed to publish this article if we even slightly imply so." -- You may not know that the researchers said they waited 20 years before trying to publish (not to disturb patients) this and then they had to wait nearly 3 years more because it is so controversial. In my opinion it is unethical not to tell this now. So I suggest that you revert the reverting of my change. Or tell me why do not agree, of course. Nopedia (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Using this exact phrase I found Schizophrenia Drugs May Spur Subtle Brain Tissue Loss; is this the correct article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


This newspaper article is about the same research article, but it does not as far as I can see describe the brain tissue loss accurately. Nopedia (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Needle Exchange and Kerstin Kall's Criticisms

Doc James, I have not understood that Pubmed is mandatory for sourcing of drug intervention text, however I am appreciable of any discussion about anything in my text that you think inaccurately reflects the sources cited. Please see my comments on the Kall and JGDPP issue here. I hope these are helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minphie (talk • contribs) 09:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources you have cited are not reliable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

NBCA

Hello, I'm very confused as to why pulmonary embolism and deep vien thrombosis cannot have links to the National Blood Clot Alliance. This is not spam, I just figured it should be linked. The National Blood Clot Alliance is a nonprofit organization that provides further information on the two conditions as well as patient stories. Can you please tell me why this is not okay? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliz.portillo (talk • contribs) 15:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Gout revert

Hi, the change I made here that you reverted was worded to reflect exactly what the cited article says, "...Western diets (high intakes of meat, seafood, fructose-sweetened beverages and beer) are linked..." and a mention of "high alcohol consumption" further down. Sorry if I didn't make that more clear. As a sometimes gout sufferer I don't necessarily agree with that list, but that's what the citation says. Best, CliffC (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Glioma: deletion of valuable information

Please take care when deleting material from articles. From Glioma you deleted: "Most glioblastomas are infected with cytomegalovirus" perhaps because it cited The Economist. But the information was correct and significant: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12067971 Thank you, pgr94 (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Borders of the lung merger

Thanks for your input on this page! ~ Kerowyn Leave a note 16:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Circumcision edits

I'm sorry for the reverts, because your changes are good. I should have worked through them all yesterday.Earthsales5 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Uterine fibroids and MRgFUS

Hi, wondering why you moved it so far down? My idea of ordering was a mix of invasiveness, fertility preservation criteria and overall karma - currently I would place it well before UAE or anything else. Richiez (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Review?

what article/edit do you need a review for?Earthsales5 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Colonoscopy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
My contributions (references and most text) is still there after you're done, though removed from the intro. You should not take out the McDougal external link. Take a look, as it's quite informational and full of good references.Earthsales5 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of the Literature

The RACP and RDMA statements are reviews of the current literature.Earthsales5 (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes and they are included in the appropriate section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The point is that they affirm the (you say 20 year old) AMA statement with a current review of the lit.Earthsales5 (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
While you're looking here, why is HIV in the circumcision introduction? Is Wiki a popular news encyc? That looks to be the justification (the number of google searches).Earthsales5 (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Project relocation issue response

Thanks for the fast response to my proposal on the project talk page. You have a good point regarding the critical mass available here - technical and otherwise. I am primarily a financial contributor to wikipedia -not an editor or techie. I do care about "breaking" wikipedia. It's too bad that the medical wiki world is so fractured (as seen from the large number of wikis out there). Have you discussed any of this with senior software people at wikipedia? Are there any in your group? The medical infospace is very large. I must admit my post was a pretty fast reaction to some pages and your project page. I'll try to be helpful if I can. Thanks again for opening the channel. Codwiki (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Proposal Closest seems to be wikidoc

The closest project seems to be wikidoc.org . However, I randomly checked one of their articles on achondroplasia and found wikipedia to be incomparably more detailed and better. However, the wikipedia page would be intimidating for a member of the general public who has no idea what an autosomal dominant genetic disorder is. I need to do some more research on how wikipedia subject areas could be structured. The "outline of" article type is not quite there (although great for subject mavens) - I don't know if there is a "introduction to" or "gateway article" type. This would be similar to the portal concept but at a much lower level in the subject hierarchy. More thinking to do. Feel free to pass these ideas along to others. Codwiki (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

Here's my comment/reaction on the talk page of "simple wikipedia". Dumb Idea. Wow! Talk about a put down. "Simple" english. How about "plain" english. The creators of this should be ashamed of themselves. This is not the solution to overly technical, jargon-filled pages on wikipedia (which I love btw). Wikipedia should be structure[d] to introduce material simply and users should be able to "drill down" to increasing levels of technical sophistication. Codwiki (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What we have here is what many social structures suffer from - the development of elitism and aristocracy.

Yes not involved with that project to any extent. But agree the naming maybe could have been better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Referencing is required WHEN Appropriate

ProfessorAM Doc AM ]] (talk · contribs · email)

Dear Jfdwolff: Thank you for your opinion, however, I do not agree with what you have written, nor do I need help with adding references. I did not, as you state add "large blocks of unreferenced text" which I agree would be against the foundation of Wikipedia, what I added had more to do with style than with new material. Regarding this particular edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May-Thurner_syndrome&action=historysubmit&diff=430552028&oldid=414094080] you will find that I did not add anything that required referencing; and that fact is equally true of the Dengue article noted previously. For the record, if you were to review all the work I have done you would find that over 95% of the material I add is referenced - this is true of what I do on wikipedia as it is of my professional work. I have over 30 years of experience as a physician and I have well over 100 peer-reviewed scientific articles and ten books to my credit. I know how and when things truly need referencing. Wikipedia is for laymen more than for those of us who are expert in medicine and science. It is my sincere belief that if I elect to provide useful clarifying data that is well known to anyone in my field --who has actually handled patients with a given illness -- there is no need to provide a gratuitous reference. And as regards to bullets - I find them very helpful. The data as you had entered it was confusing and misleading to those less knowledgeable about the topic and you have decreased the value of the work by erasing my contributions. ProfessorAM (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC) ProfessorAM http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ProfessorAM&redirect=no

I disagree and believe referencing is always required. I think most here agree with me.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Non-ionizing radiation damage nerves and you know it...

You don't want the truth to be known, do you? You don't care about people suffering. You don't fight for a better life, a better world for you and your loved ones. If you live with Whole body Chronic Neuropathic Pain due to a MRI exam, you would understand what I'm suffering. Shame on you!!!!!!. I did a skin biopsy and it showed nerve damage..... Non-ionizing radiation damage nerves, causes cancer, and it is a fact, and you know it, don't you? Your a Lobbiest, aren't you? Well, sooner or later, people will know. Like it happened with tobaco, amiant, etc.... You can't hide the truth for too long....

We are here to report the opinion of the scientific community which means we are here to report the conclusions of review article whether we like the conclusions are not. I am not the person you need to convince. Provide me a review and we can discuss things further. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

BNF- Amoxycillin

Their is a fairly large amount of information in the bnf on amoxicillin and I only have access to a paper copy at the moment. Is there anything in particular you were looking for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GadBeebe (talk • contribs) 13:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Even regarding dental treatment there is a fair chunk of text. With regards to Infective endocarditis, bnf57(march 09 states "Antibacterial prophylaxis and chlorhexidine mouthwash are not recommended for the prevention of endocarditis in patients undergoing dental procedures. Such prophylaxis may expose patients to the adverse effects of antimicrobials when the evidence of benefit has not been proven" (emphasis included in original text) Amoxicillin itself is of course used on a regular basis in dental practice, but not for the prevention of endocarditis. I believe this is a relatively recent change, so some practitioners may well still be following out of date recommendations. Does this answer your query?GadBeebe (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_18&oldid=1142971177"