Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

the hub

The hub is not advertising; the purpose of this hub is to provide readers with an interactive space to learn more about pandemics and viruses, and what they can do to help avoid the next pandemic. The site also provides exclusives on real-life virus hunters (who are working to avoid another pandemic). This wiki doesn't appear to be solely academic in nature, so we thought this would be a good fit. Let me know if and why you think otherwise Ogundirans (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)ogundirans

It appears you work for this organization. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Please do not readded it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Alprazolam

Sure, Doc, will indent, sorry. Are we on the same page with my response to Peter? 70.137.129.5 (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC) I am always afraid to show an unpleasant quasi-robotic attitude in my replies. is it bearable? I am missing a response to our previous replies to Peter, making this more into a set of monologues rather than a dialogue. Am I missing something? 70.137.129.5 (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC) re other medical/pharm articles, dear Doc I am painfully aware that Wp is to a large extent a playground for fringe aspects evidenced to an arbitrary select assortment of primary sources, rather than representing clinical mainstream opinion, insofar missing criteria of encyclopedic material. You can prove everything like that, as virtually everything has once been suspected, assumed, investigated, postulated or contradicted in primary research, so it is a sole matter of selection of supporting sources. Insofar the resulting Wp articles are highly arbitrary, tainted by selection and unscientific in their uncontrolled methodology. Peters recent objection is not an exception, given the credentials he assumes I am left in doubt about reality and my own sanity. This must be America, as seen by an immigrant. I am willing to look at others and contribute, however have always faced stiff opposition with my edits. Do you really think I should? I am a lay person. 70.137.129.5 (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC) So you recognize above doubts? As a foreigner to this culture and language I find that the least problem is a lack of self confidence, rather than a completely US-centric view and a lack of controlled scientific methodology and awareness of this. Even as a complete lay man I recognize the effects of sampling bias, biased collective studies, evident complete lack of insight into experiment design. And I am only an electrician. You should see our academics. Where has this continent gone. Where are the khompetent people? Good friend, thank you for support of my edits on alprazolam. 70.137.129.5 (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you revert my good faith edit on passive smoking?

I removed reference to [6] (Tong and Glantz paper) after "Currently, the health risks of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus." since this reference is far from being the most appropriate to support the statement (compared to Kessler's findings, which have pages detailing the extent of the consensus). However, I did not delete Ref. [6], as it is very appropriate after "the tobacco industry coordinated a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products", since it indeeds provides evidence of such activity by the tobacco industry. I provided an explanation of my change. Deleting it without explanation is not a good practice on Wikipedia, and can be assimilated to vandalism.

I contend that the article by Tong and Glantz is inappropriate as a reference to support the statement about the general scientific consensus, as, firstly, it provides no additional information beyond what is in Kessler's document, secondly, it deals exclusively, with little elaboration, with the consensus that passive smoking increases on particular type of diseases (CVDs), not the general scientific consensus about the "health risks [plural!] of secondhand smoke", and thirdly, such specific consensus about CVDs is already acknowledged in prior and more authoritative documents, such as the 2006 Surgeon General Report. If a second reference was needed, then the FCTC (ref. [1]) would be more pertinent than ref. [6]). I will make another attempt along this line, hoping that you will not revert my change without at least discussing it in the Talk page. Dessources (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am wondering why you are removing the ref I added. This is a medical review article which supports the legal paper. It is also free access and this is definitely appropriate in addition to the other paper.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This reference is neither appropriate nor necessary for the reason I indicated in my comment above, which you did not address. The paper by Tong and Glantz superficially mentions the consensus with respect to one condition, CVD, without further elaboration. If one were to include all papers that make reference to the scientific consensus on some specific condition, the list of references would be long. The other references (Kessler and FCTC) refer to the general consensus and, in the case of Kessler's report, it details the arguments supporting the conclusion that there is a general scientific ocnsensus. The paper by Tong and Glantz relates to a different subject, the tobacco industry efforts to undermine evidence. Kessler's findings, the SG report and the text of the WHO FCTC are all freely available on the Internet - and I don't know which Wikipedia rule indicates that freely accessible sources are superior to those which aren't. I found a peer reviewed article by a well respected expert on the subject who provides good evidence and arguments establishing that there is a scientific consensus, which I will use instead of the paper by Tong and Glantz. Comparing the two papers, you will see what I mean by providing proper evidence and arguments supporting the assertion that the health effects of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus. The paper by Samet meets such requirement, while the paper by Ong and Glantz doesn't - when you added it as reference, you actually indicated the it was "not really needed". Interestingly, the Ong and Glantz paper is not even cited in the Samet paper, which is rather comprehensive. Finally, the Samet paper is freely accessible on the Internet. I hope this time you will not revert my update without an explicit justification and a proper discussion in the Talk page of the article and refrain from starting an edit war.
Dessources (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Response...

Thanks for the information. So, from what I understand, I will make sure that any links that are added from any of the organizations that I work for are done by an outside party in order to uphold their credibility, and that they are direct links to the editorial content on the topic (i.e article, video footage, etc.) rather than just the site. Or, just create a new page with strong resources. That actually may be better for what we're trying to do - I think you're right in that the pages that you watch/curate, are a bit too limited (and academic) in scope. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogundirans (talk • contribs) 14:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the slipup! Didn't realize there commercial websites weren't allowed to be cited as sources. Thanks for the heads up!

SDGilson (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Warning: I have reported your edit warring / 3RR rule violation re the passive smoking article

You have reverted 4 times my edit - this is a case of edit warring which I feel obliged to report, as violation of the 3RR rule. See additional comment on the talk page of the Passive Smoking article. Dessources (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Presto54 (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Disclosure: I am a board certified neurologist and an unpaid advisor to MedMerits, without any actual, contingent, or promised ownership stake in the company. This communication refers to deletion of an external link to MedMerits.

I am writing to make the case that MedMerits did not deserve to be deleted as an external link from the Wikipedia entries on multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. MedMerits offers information on neurologic disorders that complements and often exceeds what is available in Wikipedia. Moreover, MedMerits is as valuable a public resource on neurologic disorders as eMedicine and GeneReviews, two resources of the same genre that are given prominent play in Wikipedia. I would like to show that MedMerits is at least as useful and authoritative as these resources, but as it has only recently launched its public pages, it has not yet gained the visibility enjoyed by its better known cousins. I invite you to have a closer look at MedMerits, because there is a lot more there than might be noted on first blush. You will find that MedMerits articles will often provide greater depth and breadth on areas it covers than Wikipedia, eMedicine, or GeneReviews.

Take Multiple sclerosis, for example, as it is one of the strongest neurologic entries in Wikipedia, and compare it to the Multiple sclerosis article in MedMerits. The Wikipedia article merely covers the highlights of MS symptoms, whereas the clinical manifestations of the MedMerits article has a word count of nearly 7,000; in addition, MedMerits offers a full-length article on fatigue in MS, another full-length article on the neurobehavioral aspects of MS, and yet another full-length article on the management of MS symptoms. The Wikipedia article has no differential diagnosis section, whereas the MedMerits article has an extensive and annotated list. The Wikipedia article barely mentions MS and pregnancy, whereas the MedMerits article has an entire page on this subject. The Wikipedia article does not mention considerations for MS patients who have to undergo general anesthesia or electrode implantation to control abnormal movements, whereas the MedMerits article offers a paragraph.

MedMerits also covers conditions and variants not covered or barely mentioned in Wikipedia. For example, there are a few sentences on the clinically isolated syndrome in the Wikipedia MS article, which links to what is hardly more extensive than a stub under that heading. By contrast, MedMerits has a full-length article on that subject. The Wikipedia MS article mentions Balo concentric sclerosis in passing, but MedMerits has a full-length article on it. Again, Wikipedia has a separate entry on this subject that is hardly more extensive than a stub. The Wikipedia MS article does not mention tumefactive MS at all, whereas, again, MedMerits has a full-length article. Wikipedia does have an entry for tumefactive MS but it’s just a stub and is labeled as such. To get a broader overview of the coverage of MS in MedMerits, please visit the MedMerits Multiple Sclerosis Center.

My only purpose in making the foregoing comparisons is to illustrate that MedMerits has plenty of what Wikipedia has thus far not attained. The same pattern is repeated in all areas covered by MedMerits. Wikipedia’s coverage is often weaker or is in less depth than the corresponding MedMerits coverage. Thus MedMerits offers a level of coverage that is complementary to that in Wikipedia and is therefore an appropriate target for users who desire to pursue their research further. The availability of links to eMedicine and GeneReviews in Wikipedia does not displace MedMerits as a suitable target for further research, as MedMerits is similarly complementary to them and, more often than not, exceeds their coverage in the general areas it covers.

If you compare MedMerits with eMedicine, you will find that MedMerits articles have far greater depth and much broader coverage (of neurologic disorders) than eMedicine. GeneReviews overlaps the content area covered by MedMerits. MedMerits covers some genetic disorders but many other neurologic disorders as well, whereas GeneReviews covers the most important genetic disorders and more but does not cover disorders without a substantial genetic contribution. Otherwise, article by article they are of comparable quality and, often, of depth, although anything but redundant. Moreover, the MedMerits website offers a broader array of neurologic information resources (eg, Community forums, external links, context-specific news, expert analysis of key journal articles) than does either eMedicine or GeneReviews--or Wikipedia for that matter. Its favorable comparison with eMedicine and GeneReviews, which have already been accepted as key reference sources in Wikipedia, strongly suggests that MedMerits, too, should be accepted.

There is no freely accessible resource on the web that offers what MedMerits offers to the general public and physicians in the area of neurologic disorders. MedMerits licenses its information from MedLink Neurology, an authoritative fee-based resource with a distinguished slate of authors and editorial board (Click on About MedLink Neurology in the menu). MedLink is cited in 16 independent Wikipedia articles. Moreover, neurologists worldwide pay subscription fees of 400 USD for accessing MedLink Neurology. A large subset of the same information is now avaliable for free to the public at MedMerits. About 2,500 Canadian and US physicians already access MedMerits on a regular basis. Rather than looking at MedMerits as weak for licensing its information, it should be viewed as pioneering a way to bring premium medical information into the public domain.

I hope that your thoughtful consideration will convince you that it’s in the public interest to include MedMerits as an external link in Multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and other appropriate articles in Wikipedia.

No consensus for its inclusion. Please see here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Drugs.com website

Hi. I would appreciate if you would do me a small favor and try to access the drugs.com web site. When I ping it, it responds, but when I try to load a page, my browser tells me that the site is not responding. I hope it is a temporary glitch, but I fear that BogBot may have been sending too many page requests and the administrators there may have blocked my IP address from accessing the site. BogBot has updated ~3/4 of drugbox templates, but I obviously need access to the drugs.com web site to complete the job. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have used an anonymizer to confirm that the drugs.com website is still up and running. I have sent an e-mail to their technical support explaining the situation and requesting that my IP address be unblocked. Hopefully they will respond, but probably not until Monday at the earliest. Boghog (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is working for me... Could I run the bot from where I am?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirming the site is working. I can also access it, but only through an anonymizer. It is non-trivial to set up the environment to run a python bot. Also it takes some baby sitting. Finally, you also might get blocked. Hence I think it would be much better to wait for a response from drugs.com. They might have some suggestions for how to do this better (e.g., if they have a INN to drugs.com mapping, it would make things much easier). Boghog (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I got a very helpful response from the drugs.com website. In addition to unblocking by IP address, they also offered to send me a list of valid monograph, CONS, CDI, MTM, and international URLs. This list will completely eliminate the bots need to send page requests to the drugs.com website and speed up the whole process. Boghog (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You Knee effusion jpg

Hi Doctor.

I looked at your Knee effusion.jpg [1] and saw the arrow you mentioned.
However it is not clear if the arrow is pointing to the dark grey mass or the smaller, lighter grey mass under the patella.
Can you please clarify this for me?


Thanks --Sinanjew (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Mitch

It is hard to see a knee effusion in a picture I agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Presto54 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that there is no consensus to include MedMerits as an external link to Multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. Neither are there more than two opinions against it. I am not even sure how well-considered those two opinions are. I wrote my earlier message to provide a clear rationale for including MedMerits as an external link. I hoped that it would result in the reversal of your initial opinion or, at least, in a response that addressed the substance of my message.

I am not sure how to interpret your response. Is it just that there is no consensus? Are there certain facts in my earlier message you disagree with? Or is your reponse based on something more fundamental, like MedMerits is not a "...large representative or professional organisation. Buys its content elsewhere," as JFW wrote?

Passive smoking

James, I've commented at Talk:Passive smoking#Pleading for the law of parsimony, but I'm sorry I can't give you unequivocal support in your stance. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you really must not edit-war. It's never the correct way to deal with good-faith contributors – whether they are wrong, mistaken, or simply differing in view. You are also really best not to be issuing templated 3R warnings to the person you're in dispute with either - it gives the impression of being heavy-handed, and is particularly inappropriate when you've been doing the same thing yourself. You know I consider you one of my wiki-friends, so please take this advice to heart. I know I was slow to respond to your request for more eyes at the Doctor's Mess, and for that I'm sorry. Please look for an opportunity to reach a rapprochement with Dessources – he's clearly on the side of science and we should be doing all we can to encourage him. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Case: Abortion

This message is to inform you that you have been added as a party to a currently open Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, per Arbitrator instructions. You may provide evidences and comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really interested. Not really that involved and have commented all I wish too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Endometriosis

Dear Doc James,

thank you for the introduction you wrote on my user page!

I would like to discuss your reversion of my research related edits in the Endometriosis article. Therefore I started a discussion at Talk:Endometriosis#Medication:_Research

Best regards --Biomeddude (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Picture on breast changes

Hi! You have inserted this picture [2] in the article on Pregnancy. It's fine, except that there is a distracting element that somehow gets in the way of comparison: the two pictures are taken under very different lighting conditions. I have reworked the image using Photoshop and have arrived at the following result: [3], which I think eliminates the problem and improves the picture. What do you think? If you agree, then we could replace the current picture with the modified one. What would be the best way of doing it? Dessources (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother. I have done the change. Real easy. I hope it's okay with you.
Dessources (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot

I started an RFC at WP:VPI#Linkrot - What to do? and encourage you to comment there. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Skin Needling

I noticed that you have removed my posting on Skin needling in the Scar section as spam. I do not understand this. Skin needling is a very effective technique, proven by numerous clinical studies and theoretically far more sound than, for example, Fraxel laser (I am saying that as an expert, having spent fifteen years doing medical research, which was published in over 20 peer-review medical journals. Google my last name and "medical ultrasound" for example). Not listing Skin Needling among available scar treatments is a serious omission and does disservice to Wikipedia readers.

MichaelAstor (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes you need to use review articles per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What is this person doing?

Dear Jmh649,

I am sorry, I should have left explanations for the changes I made to the Ebola and Marburg pages. Wikipedia is currently substantially flawed when it comes to descriptions of the filoviruses. The main flaws are a complete misunderstanding of virus taxonomy, especially the constant confusion of species or worse even higher taxa (which are concepts) with viruses (actual physical entities). There is a big difference between the word "ebolavirus" and "Ebola virus", for instance, as the former refers to all members of a genus (and in effect to the five ebolaviruses, with Ebola virus being one of them) and the latter refers to one particular virus. Taxa are italicized, their members are not and so on. Also, taxa are not abbreviated, only viruses are and so on. The same holds true for marburgvirus vs. Marburg virus.

The second problem is that until recently, filovirus species and viruses were spelled identically and only differentiated by italicization of the former and non-italicization of the latter. The ICTV Filoviridae Study Group, i.e. the most preeminent filovirus experts, have therefore recently changed the names of viruses and taxa to make filovirus taxonomy more uniform and to make it harder for non-experts to mix up taxa and viruses. The group also introduced new abbreviations for the individual viruses to adhere to ICTV naming guidelines.

The third problem is that there are not different forms of "Ebola", but that there five different viruses, that belong to five different species, and that these are only distantly related although causing a similar disease. Sudan virus is as distant and different from Ebola virus as is Lassa virus from Machupo virus. Therefore, the five viruses deserve separate Wiki entries. A similar decision has been reached regarding Marburg virus and what previously was called the Ravn strain of Marburg virus. Ravn is distant enough from all other known Marburg virus variants that a second category needed to be created. The Study Group decided that it would be elevated to novel virus, but remain in the same species as Marburg virus. Ravn virus, as it was named, therefore deserves a new Wiki entry, and the paragraphs pertaining to it need to be deleted from the Marburg virus page.

What I have done over the last days is fix all these issues, starting with creating pages for the individual taxa and viruses and delineating the rules for their use as described by the Study Group. Please take a look at the cited (and peer reviewed) article from 2010 that describes and verifies all my changes and also at the NEW ICTV webpage (ICTVdb is still online but out of service for years and has not been updated and should not be used anymore), where you can find the acceptance of these changes by the ICTV (I have also pointed out when a taxon has not been accepted). I had deleted the paragraphs in the Ebola page that refer to ebolaviruses other than Ebola virus and moved them to the new pages. I also moved the content from page "Ebola" to "Ebola virus" - one, for consistency with the other pages and two, because "Ebola" is jargon and ambiguous. One cannot be infected with Ebola, only with Ebola virus. Wikipedia ought to be as precise as possible.

This entire endeavor is a process and a lot of work. I do not mean to undermine anything you wrote or to offend you by making substantial changes. I have worked on these viruses for years, however, and am consulting internationally on them and think that mistakes and inaccuracies ought to be fixed to improve quality for general readership. This also includes case numbers, proper (or better) citations etc., which I have not yet looked at.

Please feel free to discuss this further with me, but please also check the references I provide for backing up my statements before undoing them just because something is new or feels wrong to you. I would very much like to have your feedback in case you do not understand what I am writing so I can improve the writing for general readership.

I am almost done with the general classification and nomenclature issues in the filovirus pages. Currently, the descriptions are only missing for three viruses (Ebola virus, Marburg virus, and Ravn virus) because I did not get to them yet. The changes I had made to the Ebola and Marburg virus page were therefore only quick fixes to bring the overall terminology in line with the correct one before explaining it. I will deal with this shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ce-boHemFe (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Require your assistance

Hi doc, i am working on this orbital lymphoma article. Need to improve this oncology based article with references and free images. I am not getting right and reliable resources for the article. Hope you might take some interest in this and help the article out thanks  Sehmeet singh  Talk  18:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Breast Cancer article vandalism

Hi Doc James,

Sorry to bother you, and/or if I'm asking the wrong person the wrong way, but I need advice on changing some vandalised URL's in the Breast Cancer - References section. See the discussion for details. There might well be more problems that I've not recognised, so it's probably a good idea if someone with expert knowledge casts their eyes over the entire article.

Best regards,

Adrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treagle (talk • contribs) 10:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't want an edit war...

Jmh649, I'm trying to understand why you keep reverting edits that properly move arguments from the header of the article to the arguments section where they belong. The introduction of an article is not a place for arguments or conclusions; those should be in the correct parts of the article. The first 1 or 2 paragraphs should be just enough information to let a person know what a subject is. Things like "here's why people don't like it" should be down below in the section that actually talks about why people don't like it.

Keep in mind, I'm not disputing the claims or the importance of that text, but the header of the article is the wrong place. It should be in the body. -- TomXP411[Talk] 16:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal Information

I don't see that you have the right to post personal information you believe may pertain to any reader.That is an attempt to out. And this statement: "No one has mentioned TimidGuy by name" is patently untrue. I'll remove the content again. If you have concerns about my edit please check with an neutral admin or an arbitrator, or alternately I will. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

If any of the users who you are mentioning feel this is personal information they have previously posted then they could say so. Otherwise I think the best option for now is to remove it. Safety first.(olive (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC))
I've asked a neutral admin tol take a look and I'll be happy to abide by his judgment [6].(olive (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC))
Response [7].
James, your MEDRS comment is not about me and it goes beyond TG's place of employment. It also includes another editor. I also asked to have information removed from my talk page because of off line harassment so I find your comments here about me, and about your MEDRS comment to be both objectionable and lacking in truthfulness . You also used the MEDRS comment in a discussion to sway an argument which is harassment, and you have used arguments which harass before on NB. Patterns of harassment are not acceptable on Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC))
Please do not write further comments on my talk page. They do not add anything. Your conflict of interest is a concern. You and TimidGuy work together thus what we have here is meet puppetry. All the best.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, James. That unfortunately is the kind of response I've come to expect. You are tossing around accusations and false information once again. Please see the TM arbitration and familiarize yourself with the results.(olive (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

I have restored most of the comment, redacting the parts that might be construed as violating WP:OUTING. I hope that we can all get back to useful work now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a decent compromise. TG has to my knowledge admitted to being on MUM faculty but has never that I know of said he works on different levels of the movement.I removed that and think it would be appropriate to restore the part about MUM. James is also referring to another editor who as far as I have seen has never said anything about him or herself , so that is a concern. I will bow out of this now and let TG and Early Morning person deal with this further.(olive (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

syphilis staging

Hi, sorry I am new to this. I requested that a heading for Syphilis staging be added, or perhaps a link to another subject about syphilis staging on another page. The public health community I work in always has questions about it, and there is nothing on the internet available. There is alot of detail that can be added, I was hoping to get others to contribute. The CDC has training for it, but none of the material is on their website. Would you post it?

Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.143.20 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure will look into it when I have time.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean primary, secondary, tertiary?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Alprazolam

Please take a look at discussion. Peter Barglow came back with NYT article about abuse in Kentucky, instead of review article. I start developing doubts if he understands what we told him. 70.137.156.237 (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have done some edits to remove advice and anecdote, done some proofreading against ref. Can you take a look and check if the edits are ok. ? 70.137.157.82 (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

your talk page

cannot be displayed, says "encoding error" on my computer with Firefox. Something must have changed today, it thinks you use some unsupported compression. 70.137.157.82 (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

strange, after using your edit box to place the previous message, it works again and became visible. 70.137.157.82 (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Hey

Would you mind semi-protecting Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool for me? It seems to be attracting childish vandalism, and, today, a confused user who seemed to think it was the talk page for an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Done --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your publication

Nice work. Jesanj (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

UBC event

Hello,

Just wanted to say hi because I will probably be coming to the "Wikipedia and Higher Education" event on October 6th.[8] InverseHypercube 06:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Scientology position on Anti-Psychiatry

Scientology is an incredibly small sect with maybe a hundred thousand believers. In a human scale, that makes their opinion completely irrelevant. There are bigger sects in my country which just don't believe in taking medicine, period. Moreover, placing that article there puts firm antipsychiatry believers, which is a medical opinion, square in the same camp as a bunch of idiots. It doesn't belong there, except for portraying the antipsychiatry movement as a cult of idiots. Remove it.

You could start a discussion on the talk page. Scientology is a notable group who has taken a strong stance on psychiatry. Stronger than many others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Preview

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --Leyo 07:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ebola classification

The classification of the various ebolaviruses can be found on the Ebolavirus page, which describes the genus and and its species, and on the individual species pages, which list the individual viruses. Ce-boHemFe (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

bipolar page

I made some corrections in the talk section for this page...thanks for your helpUnklekrappy (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Thank you for that msg. How do I join? Is there a brick-and-mortar meeting? I can help set that up in Edmonton.Curb Chain (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Mirtazapine

I have done a series of edits there (all 70.137.xxxx edits) to improve citation, remove OR and SYN, could you check and ok. so far, also see discussion. 70.137.142.102 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC) The mirtazapine article is still supported by much primary research. This needs to be replaced by review articles. So much work still to be done on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 04:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

sickle beta thal lepor

To Doc James.... Are you familiar with this disorder? IS there any Holistic treatment for the side effects? The side effects of this disorder im speaking of is great pain, we call it a crisis. my newphew has this disorder and when e gets an infection can be a cold or anything, it is always followed by this crisis. Causing him great pain where is his in a fetal position crying and its can last for a week... if you have any information we are open to just about anything.

67.85.29.96 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Angela

It is best to get advice from a physician/hematologist. I am in no way an expert if your nephew has great pain he would need to be examined.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Fencamfamine

Doc James, please take a look at fencamfamine, I found some nice cargo cult science there. Are my edits ok? 70.137.148.200 (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of this stuff.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well for the primary sources, there was a nice example, where previous article claimed it to be an opioid, because the weak place preference in rats was abolished by naloxone and D1-antagonist. I added an article, where analog the place preference for drinking water was abolished by naloxone and the same D1-antagonist too. This is what I meant by cargo cult science, do a place preference abolished by nalozone and yell opioid. There is not much to be had in review articles, it were previously common and comparatively harmless OTC pep-pills in Europe for decades, now became Rx only because of young disco-cretins vulgo rave-iots... They were swell for term-papers. 70.137.148.200 (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_the_knee
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_22&oldid=1141220633"