User talk:Doc James/Archive 78

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disclosure of paid editing[edit]

I used 'Vasanthsac' account to create a page named "SAC Vasanth", this is the only account I used before. Balaji E.M (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Balaji E.M: Given it's taken this long for you to disclose that I want you to think very carefully about any other accounts you may have used, whether you yourself used it or asked someone else to use it for you. Then I want you to list them all either here, on your talk page or to me by email. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

I noticed this edit. I request that within 24 hours you produce evidence for your assertion or else withdraw your statement. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John was edit warring on my talk page to restore comments made by other editors. In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page on 19:14, 29 May 2014. He then immediately blocked me on 19:18, 29 May 2014. This was only four minutes later he decided to block me. He wrote "Very well, I will not restore any more items that you delete from your talk page. I will block you instead."[1] I was involved in a dispute with him in regard to comments made by other editors on my talk page. An admin should not block an editor because they did not like being warned to not restore comments on an editor's talk page.

In June, I was in a content dispute with John. I reverted the original research he added to a BLP. I even explained it to him on John's talk page.

In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of any restrictions to the article. I think this was a violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK. The admin John is well aware of the sanctions. Roxy the dog disagreed with the actions by the admin John. Then the admin John suggested there should be further sanctions against both me and Roxy the dog without a logical reason. User:Kww explained John's comment was "problematic".

In November, User:Roxy the dog was asking User:PhilKnight for advice.[2] User:Phil Knight replied on November 15, 2014 that "I'm somewhat concerned with actions of John (talk · contribs), and think we would should perhaps consider a WP:RFC/ADMIN."[3]

John was previously warned not to restore comments on my talk page. John agreed. Later in November 2014 John restored comments after I deleted them.[4][5] John appears to be involved in edit warring on my talk page on two separate occasions. Please remember that John has been notified of the sanctions.

Another questionable block was against User:Alexbrn but the 0RR restrictions was lifted last year on 19 November 2014. Where is the evidence that this edit was a policy violation?

The latest questionable block was in part for this comment against User:Ronz.[6] See WP:NOTCENSORED. It appears John is too emotionally WP:INVOLVED in this topic area. QuackGuru (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for provided some evidence QG. I must agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Must you? Are you sure you agree with this "evidence"? --John (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your blocks have been questionable especially the one of User:Alexbrn Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John, yes, I think your blocks are questionable because your set of editing restrictions is questionable: I don't see that they are leading to an improvement of the articles in question, and I don't see that they serve to discourage people from distorting articles to favour pseudoscience. QG's list is imperfect evidence, but it is certainly evidence. There's a fairly good case to be made that editors are being asked to not make negative statements about ayurveda out of cultural sensitivity towards India. Did Ronz express that perfectly? No. Did your block hinder discussion? Yes.
Your persistence in seeing this as an unruly debate between two sides as opposed to an effort by alt-med and pseudoscience editors to distort our content serves only to damage the project. I don't know how many people have to tell you that before you see it. Even now, we have what would normally be considered a consensus to describe current practice of ayurveda as pseudoscience in the lead because the opposition has brought forth nothing and the support has brought forth good reliable sourcing. What are we supposed to do now? Ask for your blessing that the consensus is sufficient? Or make the edit and run the risk of being arbitrarily blocked because we made ayurveda proponents unhappy?—Kww(talk) 10:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin yourself, posting on another admin's page about the efforts of a third admin to keep the peace and allow regular editing, perhaps you can extend yourself a little and think how we normally determine consensus when it is disputed? This isn't all that difficult to answer (in fact it strikes me that it would make quite a good RfA question). I will not get involved in helping determine consensus but if the two of you are genuinely stuck I can help you figure it out. Try properly yourselves first though, please. --John (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
QG, I don't think describing John as "involved" helps. He doesn't meet the definition of WP:INVOLVED. What he has done is craft an unworkable set of editing restrictions, and I think we need to get an understanding of the proper forum to discuss that and get them overridden. Many people have complained, and it seems unlikely that he will modify them himself at this point.—Kww(talk) 10:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this, Kww. --John (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that one of Johns followers thinks that using the phrase "advocate of Ayurveda" is harrassment, and that one dare not use the Jimbo crafted phrase "Lunatic Charlatans" for fear of offending not other eds, but an admin, is telling. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is more John's involvement that is not useful / worsens the situation. Either fully protect or apply 1RR. 0RR means you can simply block whoever you like (especially when you appear to interpret it as applying to any edit not just reverts) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine and you are welcome to request full protection (with reasoning) at the article talk page. The claim I was asking you to provide evidence for was IMO they are involved in alt med and thus should not be using there admin tools in this area. Again, I request that you provide evidence for that or withdraw it. If you decide to do the latter, doing so here will be fine. Thanks again. --John (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wording was adjusted. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, QuackGuru for pointing that out. Thanks, Doc James, for making that adjustment. As far as I am concerned this matter is now resolved. --John (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to continue with the restrictions that are incompatible with Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Ayurveda. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

negative antiquated language in the articleon Downs Syndrome.[edit]

As the parent of a child with Down's, the Wikipedia article on 'Down's Syndrome' while informative in places is unacceptably offensive and full of archaic insensitive language throughout....

I do not accept Downs is a disease, a disorder, an abnormality, a failure of nature or cell/gene formation...or any other negative connotation advised within the article in Wikipedia....the reference to what women 'tend' to do if genetic differences are identified prenatally I would suggest reflects more society's and the medical worlds denegration of the difference rather than Downs itself! And you have a role in that mindset.

cells divide differently..that's all! And difference is good and to be celebrated. It is no less acceptable than different eye colour....would those women have been facing the dilemma of termination over the colour of their child's eyes? As with any offspring, they are all different, some with strengths in one field and less strength in another....

In educating the masses (scientific or society in general) you have a significant opportunity to change mindsets on this perfectly natural difference....please replace the antiquated language...If you would like any help feel free to contact me or any one of the many Downs Organisations working hard to redress the perpetuation of such negative language.

Of course all this applies to any genetic difference, like Cri du Chat etc...worth a full audit I would suggest.

thank you Roisin Curran (roisisn.curran@bt.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.126.204 (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia we just try to reflect the best available literature. The scientific literature does not view DS as a "perfectly natural difference" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onychomycosis treatment with mentholated ointment[edit]

RE: Changes made August 23, 2014 The change note had: Please use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS, case series are not sufficiently reliable or notable. I am aware of this but there are no secondary sources and probably never will be due to there being no profit in this treatment. However anecdotal and unreviewed this is, it is not a hippy-dippy naturopathic magic crystal and chakras blog. It's JABFM published: http://www.jabfm.org/content/24/1/69.full.pdf Novel Treatment of Onychomycosis using Over-the-Counter Mentholated Ointment: A Clinical Case Series Richard Derby MD, Patrick Rohal MD, Constance Jackson MD, Anthony Beutler MD, and Cara Olsen PhD, MPH,

So, I assume, this will simply be deleted if restored. How does it not get deleted? How do I get secondary sources? I do hope you noted I said it was a clinical trial and anecdotal with mixed and subjective results. I am not an anti big pharma vaccines cause autism nutter.

I would ignore this matter but I did the trial on myself starting July 2014 and it seems to have, at least partially, cured my 25 year toenail fungal infection, all toes, both feet after about 8 months of a light daily coating on the surface of all toes. I have modified the treatment by only using mentholated mineral oil after the first month of using Vick's. I found the eucalyptus oil irritating. There was no clear visible effect for several weeks. The first major event was in month 2 when both large toe nails simply fell off. There was no pain involved. Theory: The fungus inhibits the immune system and treatment weakened the fungus so that the immune system reasserted itself and rejected the especially heavily infected large toe toenails as foreign bodies. No other toenails became lose. The toenails did not change themselves. That is to say the appearance was the same, but new growth seems to have come in infection free. The current growth is clear and very much resembles the pictures in the paper I cited. BTW I have tried oral treatment of fluconazole and it made me too ill to continue use after three days. The oil is actually pleasant and seems to have the side effect of softening the skin surrounding the nail and preventing it from becoming ingrown.

I do not believe the effects are placebo but I do wonder if the result is the menthol or the mineral oil/petroleum jelly itself that inhibits fungal growth.

Please advise.

Thanks, TW Burger (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully more studies will be done. The largest research funder is the NIH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Head[edit]

Hi Doc,

I did use an extremely high quality review source of an overall evaluation of all EBM for spine pain. This is the current standard if care. Please redact your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitzijak (talk • contribs) 03:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes one of the sources you used was a review. The others were primary sources. Will re add the review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re added some of the text for back pain User:Vitzijak. What part of the ref supports the content for neck pain? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Heilman2[edit]

Perhaps you wanted create it in your userspace? — Yash! [talk] 10:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No to get the color coding right it needs to be temporarily in main space. WikEd for some strange reason has different coloring in user space. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. May I suggest an alternative? Open an article and do what you are doing. Just don't save the article. Click on "show preview". The changes won't be saved and you may get the desired results. Thanks! — Yash! [talk] 10:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is the active editing text I am needing. Preview doesn't help. Will delete it when I am done. Will take a few hours. Part of the efforts to translate the content into 100 other languages per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_Task_Force Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email left[edit]

Email — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdavisodie (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

back and neck pain[edit]

The review article actually examens all EBM for both neck and back pain. As you know, the evidence for spine surgery is minimal at best- yet there is a large amount if space dedicated to it on the page. Both cervical and lumbar Epidurals show at least mild benefit in acute pain and definitely reduce unneccessary surgey.

Most important is RF ablation to the facets and SI which has superb class A evidence. I quoted the most famous RCT for SI RF which is newer, the Levin review article goes over all facet RF. Both are clearly excellent procedures. Please undo your edits. If you feel it necessary I can find the links to other RCTs- the text really should remain.

Thanks Vitzijak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitzijak (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As requested can you quote the text from the review that supports RF for neck pain? I am not seeing it. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling/grammar[edit]

I hope this is OK. You once invited others to do this when we notice it. Just undo if it's a problem.

On another matter: Jacob and I are waiting to hear back from Lila on our proposed wording for the email to Fiona Godlee. I'll let the board know when it is finally sent.

Thanks for all you do here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anthonyhcole Thanks always appreciate people correcting my spelling / grammar. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem ip range[edit]

These contribs from Hospital Corporation of America seem to follow a pattern! focused on new drugs! inserting info that really doesn't belong, but probably in good faith. Any ideas how to address? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:LeadSongDog that link to the user does not work. Can you provide me a few of them to look at? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot that I'm using a gadget for wildcarding those. The ip range was 165.214.11.68 through 165.214.11.82 inclusive. The drug edits were from User:165.214.11.68, User:165.214.11.70, User:165.214.11.73 and User:165.214.11.75/LeadSongDog come howl! 15:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other than leaving them advice and trimming poor content not sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outing[edit]

If there is an Arb or ANI case along the lines of what you're describing, can you send me a ping (when/if it ever arises)? I'd be interested in looking at a specific case. CorporateM (Talk) 16:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WRT what exactly? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of outing paid editors that are out-of-compliance with the TOU. I've seen a few instances where you said you were being threatened with blocks for it (or something along those lines). I probably won't vote or comment or anything, but would be interested in seeing a specific case where a block is actually discussed to get more context, out of general interest in the subject. CorporateM (Talk) 04:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They may just have been rumors. I do not know. I have been warned to be careful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please take a look[edit]

Zinc in the treatment of HIV/AIDS DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have a class created a couple of dozen of these. Not sure what to do. See User_talk:Doc_James#Class_page Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with sources[edit]

Are these two websites appropriate secondary sources? I have the feeling they are more tertiary sources.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/depression/medicines/depakote.html

http://www.gracepointwellness.org/4-bipolar-disorder/article/11214-bipolar-disorder-treatment-valproate-and-carbamazepine

LithiumCHM333 (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second one definitely not.
This is a good source http://www.drugs.com/monograph/valproic-acid.html Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Change in invention of the Vitamin[edit]

Sir, I tried my best to put some reference for it the problem is I cant access the article how ever now I found one reference. I have found this material which is from an institute that you can't verify online. Thats why I kept the abstract less journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbalasubramanyam (talk • contribs) 05:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to find a better source if that is indeed true. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bisphenol S[edit]

Hi James, when you have a chance can you help me clean up what's going on this page please? I've done a fair amount of trimming so far but there's more content in there that has source that seems questionable to me. If you can, I'd like to get your take on what's left as I'm sure there's more to trim. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reviews from the last 5 years here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait found one [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

add to hearing aid sock farm list[edit]

Special:Contributions/Shabash12! Jytdog (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed poor sources and left redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actavis pharmaceuticals[edit]

Former name of the company is Watson Pharmaceuticals. Major editor has a pretty upbeat opinion of company and username: Watsonwiki. Has been editing since the days when the company was called Watson.

Not sure what the protocol is for these things and want to be sure I do it right as I have been a very vocal critic of those who make COI allegations in response to most every content dispute. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 11:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on it. Actavis. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jy Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola virus disease[edit]

"Blood products such as packed red blood cells, platelets or fresh frozen plasma may also be used.[110] Other regulators of coagulation have also been tried including heparin in an effort to prevent disseminated intravascular coagulation and clotting factors to decrease bleeding.[110] Antimalarial medications and antibiotics are often used before the diagnosis is confirmed,[110] though there is no evidence to suggest such treatment helps. A number of experimental treatments are being studied."

Can we write: Antimalarial medications and antibiotics are often used before the diagnosis is confirmed, though there is no evidence to suggest such treatment helps. A number of experimental treatments are being studied.[110], or this reference is only for first of this frase? Do you know a reference for second part? Lleó Pastor (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will look Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CATIE[edit]

...was a huge collaborative effort of scores of researchers under NIH funding that is something of a prototype for the importance of offsetting commercially financed research with publicly funded. It was arguable the single most important data point leading major treatment guidelines to shift from first line atypicals to simply recommending an antipsychotic. Pretty rare to sit through a psychosis talk where it is not mentioned.

I understand the primary research concern but if it were up to me I'd leave at least a short mention.

Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 15:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I agree with you about the importance of the CATIE study. It's also been discussed extensively in secondary sources (e.g. New York Times, Br J Psych editorial, Am J Psych editorial, NIMH Q&A, etc). So if it's an issue of needing secondary sources I think they're available. MastCell Talk 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the more recent secondary sources we are currently using include this trial and thus conclude that they are mostly equivalent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_11#Category:Anesthesiology_and_palliative_medicine_journals has been relisted for further consensus, in case you are interested. Brandmeistertalk 21:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not typically work on categories. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]


Celebrate[edit]

Clownscloudsblahblah Yoor Know Phool
Have a humorous day filled with lots of PHUN on this April Fools Day 2015. Any annoyance is purely coincidental.   Bfpage |leave a message  09:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Bfpage :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

anything else Herd immunity[edit]

Is there anything else that could be done to bring this article to GA in your opinion? I've gone over much of the references at User:ComfyKem/herdsource. I don't believe MEDRS applies to the entire article since much of it isn't directly about medicine, especially the portions relating to math and free riding. ComfyKem (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure will look tonight further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back pain, Neck pain[edit]

Hi Doc,

While I truly appreciate what you are doing on Wikipedia, I honestly don't understand what you don't understand. The cited articles (particularly the Levin article) are excellent published articles citing high quality randomized control trials. Please check them out on pubmed.com

I am trying to include a brief section on minimally invasive treatment of spine pain which has good to excellent evidence in its support (particularly RF to facets and SI).

There is already a large section on surgical treatment which is poorly studied, and when it is, shows minimal benefit in well designed surgical trials.

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitzijak (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vitzijak you would do best to bring up comments at the article Talk pages. I too disagree with your edits. Please do read WP:MEDRS, especially the part about "respect secondary sources". Review articles, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies, are the sources we use for health-related content. Both of those pain articles, has a box at the very top of their Talk pages, where with one click you can get to index of good sources (the box says, "Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content....") Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

While I am a newbie to editing Wikipedia, I am far from being a newbie in reading Wikipedia. I am highly experienced in developing evidenced based medicine approaches to pain issues. I would really love to improve these pages and bring them up to date with the current evidence.

I have read the wikipedia source guidelines. I still fail to understand what is wrong with my sources. I am feeling as if my opinions are being discluded not because they are incorrect or unsubstantiated, but because I am a Wikienewbie.

Please advise, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitzijak (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please do discuss at the article talk page, so that everybody who cares can participate. and please don't personalize things - i know that it is tempting (have felt it myself) but things are really not way - it is all about content/sources and policies/guidelines. assume good faith; i certainly do about you. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS - i was wrong about that source - it is really great! Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a great source. It is already used in the article. I am just not sure where in that source it supports the content you are trying to add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc in the treatment of HIV/AIDS[edit]

Courtesy notification that this has been tagged for possible merger, as per article's talk page discussion. I would have also notified the initial contributor, but they have not chosen to have a user talk page. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

Saroglitazar[edit]

If you have a chance please look in.New sock of previously blocked COI account re-adding the primary sources I deleted. Thnx Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 15:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Removed the copyright infringement and blocked user in question until they can explain copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI? / bio chip[edit]

this was an article that was deleted on wikiproject med talk, somehow it came back and "is" now an article ??? , but aside from that Talk:Biofrequency_Chip the last section (trademark?)on the talk page has detected a link to a company (only 6 hours after the article was created?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Spam. PRODed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit[edit]

Please let me know what edit you are talking about ? If it is the lead from Anti-diabetic drugs pasted to Medication in the article Diabetes then yes, I used that material but then isn't content on Wikipedia copy right free ? Let me know. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Jonathansammy. Okay no worries. In your edit summary please state were the content was moved from when you move content going forwards. This is required per "by attribution" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi Doc, i'm Sunday by name, i'm studying computer science in a Nigerian polytechnic. I recently developed this eye issue; whenever I stare at an object, say a computer screen or a smartphone, that emits white light (or so) it goes blur and I sudden won't see things clearly until I close my eyes for some few seconds. I went online and discovered I have Computer Virus Syndrome, please I need your help for an over-the-air diagnosis and a possible solution/correction to this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibbzion (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc, i'm Sunday by name, i'm studying computer science in a Nigerian polytechnic. I recently developed this eye issue; whenever I stare at an object, say a computer screen or a smartphone, that emits white light (or so) it goes blur and I sudden won't see things clearly until I close my eyes for some few seconds. I went online and discovered I have Computer Virus Syndrome, please I need your help for an over-the-air diagnosis and a possible solution/correction to this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibbzion (talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would recommend you see a physician in person. We are unable to answer these sorts of question on line. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seeknikkihi[edit]

Can you Please a look at this this .Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Maintained}} deleted[edit]

Since 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)[reply]

Yes consensus was to delete it. I see this as unfortunate. I would support the creation of a new one. But agree getting consensus for this will be difficult. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swahili[edit]

Hi 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)[reply]

User:Kipala not sure what you mean? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of our editors works sometimes on health topics, so it is better to keep the sw-discussion on our page. Else please see here at your sw-site- I did some work. Kipala (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Familial hyperaldosteronism[edit]

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)[reply]

The text is PD per [8] and the link at the bottom [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reversion - [10][edit]

Hi

Can you please explain why you reverted my edit. I have put it back again, as I still believe that it is vague and needs clarification.

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 at least try and fix the problem before reverting me again :)

Thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the edit [11]. I fixed the problem you raised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sry, I hit enter by mistake halfway through typing so did not see your reply :) Chaosdruid (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Translation attribution[edit]

Template: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)[reply]

COI ?[edit]

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/Archive 4#Above my pay scale This occurs so frequently with student editing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recruitment for Wikipedian Interview[edit]

Hello 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)[reply]

It is complicated. Much is just left uncompleted. Most work is uncoordinated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes.[edit]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

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)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Doc, would you please allow the article to be tagged for its problems?—S Marshall T/C 21:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding unneeded tags to the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm adding rather justifiable tags to the article as a whole, actually.—S Marshall T/C 21:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your drive by tagging is disruptive User:S Marshall which I guess may be the point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm a bit hurt. I'm a reasonable man with a long history of editing the encyclopaedia in a non-disruptive way. Are you willing to consider the possibility that the reason I want the article to be tagged is because it's so badly-written?—S Marshall T/C 21:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a highly contentious topic. Adding 3 tags to the top solves little / nothing. They appear to be added to warn readers.
Maybe I am simply much less of a fan of tags than you. We now have them for nearly everything. I use them almost never. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly is a contentious topic. Adding the tags by itself solves nothing; but I hope to attract the attention of other editors, which is badly needed. At the moment the article reads roughly as QuackGuru wants it to read ---- but the reason it reads like that is because QuackGuru's so active. He hasn't persuaded the other side, he's simply exhausted them. More eyes will help solve that.

    I suspect you're happy with the state of the article and would like it to continue, but it's not unreasonable to put a maintenance tag on an article that reads like that, is it?—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not happy with the state of the article. However, at least it is mostly supported by high quality refs so better than many. Putting a bunch of maintenance tags on it solves nothing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sagarika Ghose[edit]

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)[reply]

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Maybe not the healthiest for a doctor!! Thanks for your quick action. Denisarona (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasting vs Marasmus vs Stunting[edit]

Hi 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)[reply]

Wasting appears to be due to a disease and marasmus due to a lack of nutrition. Will look further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doc J. Apppreciated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From User:Sigismondo[edit]

Yes, 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.

User:Jytdog can i get your opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigismondo, you can start with mine, as I do quite a lot of this. It is entirely appropriate and desirable to add books to the article for a published author notable for his publications--for an academic in a field where books are important, we normally try to list all their books written or co-written. The book should be added in the format of other books on the list, in standard bibliographic format. It should be referenced, with the reference going not to the publisher or Amazon or a bookdealer of any sort , but to WorldCat or LC or a similar national library or by using the {{ISBN}} template. If there are books listed without full publication information and a reference, that information should be added. Ideally if one is doing that,one should do it for all the books that need fuller information, not just those from a particular publisher. . But we do not include a link to an excerpt from the book on the publishers site, i.e., we do not add something like ''Invisible: The Dangerous Allure of the Unseen'' (2015), ISBN 978-0-226-23889-0 Read an [http://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2015/Ball_Invisible.html excerpt]." That counts as advertising. The policy is WP:EL.
I am going through your past additions, and been removing such links, while keeping the bibliographic information.
Whether to include a book other than in a list of books as being of particular importance, or saying anything about the book other that the plain facts of publication--that must not be done by someone with WP:Conflict of Interest, such as the publisher. What can be done is to suggest the addition on the talk page of the article.
And if you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it on your user page, and, preferably, in the edit summary, according to our Terms of Use, particularly those with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The {{cite book}} template is an easy way to create a properly formatted bibliographic listing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic. What if someone else came and added everything from University of Illinois Press' catalog, someone else came and added everything from Yale University Press' catalog, etc etc to articles? We would just be a link farm. I left a SPA / COI notice on the user's page and asked if they work for U Chicago Press. I have come across editors who were here to do the same thing with regard to other publishers; I asked them about COI, and they disclosed that they worked for a publisher, and stopped doing this. Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If someone added every academic book from university presses to people where we already have an article as a notable academic--which is by no means the entire catalog of most academic publishers-- our content would be much improved. It's exactly the same as why articles on novelists list all their novels in a bibliography, and why articles on film actors list all their roles in a filmography. What we do not normally include for academics is book chapters, non-peer reviewed journal articles, conference presentations, reports, book reviews they write, and even all but their most important peer-reviewed articles if in fields where it's journal articles that show notability. I always remove such content whenever I encounter it. But as for adding all the books, I've always meant to start doing that myself. The reason it isnt problematic is that it's routine updating.
What would be wrong, besides the sort of improper links I've indicated above, is if publishers added articles on their new books, or on their authors. The usual sort of spam from publishers is when they add references to their newly published book in articles on the subject of the book--, but they can suggest on the talk page. It doesn't happen often, but I've been removing it for years now when it shows up.
i guess we disagree there. what if every publisher dumped their catalog into WP? (real question) Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I forgot to mention that we doremove such content fro mthe wp page of publishers. The real question is why would happen if every notable author had all their books listed, and why should it matter who helped us do this? But this question actually arose because the manner it wa being done was improper, adding links to the publisher's site, not just adding the listing of the books. That was not correct, & I assume now thecontributor knows, it will not continue. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, a matter for your attention please[edit]

I 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)[reply]

Please note, I know you are not a fan of tags, and ask that you not revert before a solution is found to the important questions asked about this information. Placing the tags was a lessor intrusion into the article, than removing the tables carte blanche after comparing them to the source text and seeing the correspondence. I understand that it is your personal view that tags are generally unhelpful, but this cannot override the long earlier consensus at WP to have them, and to allow their use by other experienced editors. Not meaning to be contentious, just not wishing this table information transfer problem to be ignored. Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Travelling and internet poor. Thus it is difficult. I will try. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AOK, no hurry. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Preeclampsia - removal of reference to IgA Nephropathy[edit]

Just wondering your rationale for removing the reference to IgA Nephropathy. Reasearch99 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post me the diff Reasearch99? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Hi, 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)[reply]

a very recent single patient case study. there is WP:NODEADLINE here and there is no reason to not wait until this is discussed in a secondary source. WP would be filled with all kinds of nonsense if we did as you suggest, Raihop. if you don't already know why an N of 1 is really meaningless there is not much I can do to help, but perhaps an essay i am drafting will help you - please see Why MEDRS? Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded on article talk, and besides the policy-based reasons of MEDRS, NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, etc, the other factor in any Tourette's situation is that *anything* that increases stress can increase tics, so naturally reducing any dietary issues might reduce tics ... and the link to causality is a long ways off from that. I have *never* encountered mention of a celiac or gluten connection to TS. If you have a secondary review, that's another matter. Also, please review WP:OWN#Featured articles (and the very prominent edit notice displayed when you edited this Featured article); FAs require strong sourcing. It might also be helpful for Raihop to review WP:BRD and WP:3RR-- several months between edits doesn't remove this from being edit warring, when there was not even a discussion of the proposed edit on article talk before reinstating it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should be bolding Primary sources should generally not be used for health related content If something is significant we can find a secondary source that discusses it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

A Disruptive Editor[edit]

You 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)[reply]

Blocked Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading[edit]

Doc James, do you think this phrase "Lemons provide 100% percent of the daily value of the vitamin C" is correct? 5.12.159.83 (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes appears one lemon is enough, but need to find a ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the phrase didn't say one lemon, or two lemons, or ten lemons. Let me put the question differently: "Lemons provide 16% percent of the daily value of the vitamin C." <- Is that correct? (irrespective of what TylerDurden8823 says, bear with me a little, we might be getting somewhere) 5.12.159.83 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This IP user appears to be a sock of the one you blocked yesterday attempt to evade the block. Please have a look at their contribution list. You'll see that they went right back to violating WP:NPA in the edit summary discussing the same page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.12.159.83 TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This diff is pretty telling [12]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, you needn't waste time on engaging this IP user. He/she wants to argue semantics. It's all irrelevant to the fact that they're a sock disruptively evading a block anyway. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semi protected the article in question. If you provide me a diff I can look at it. It should likely say one lemon or a lemon if that is the claim Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody wants to disrupt the article, so there was no point in protecting it. It's fine now (at least part that was disputed). And here's the part that was disputed . It doesn't mention what amount of Chia seeds might provide >20% or 10% of the vitamins. TylerDurden8823 tried yesterday to keep that version (for a while). 5.12.159.83 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please block 5.12.159.... as a sock of User:82.76.72.117. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5's comments are ridiculous and have zero credibility coming from a sock. His behavior has been nothing BUT disruptive. Most of his edit have been associated with unnecessary personal attacks (violating WP:NPA) and he or she shows zero remorse (hasn't even denied it) about the block evasion. I think an indefinite block may be in order. Also, the whole "lemon" concept the user is bringing up above has nothing to do with actual lemons, he's just making a simplified (and flawed) analogy since if one lemon does have 100% DV Vitamin C, then it can be logically inferred that multiple lemons would provide more than that (discounting variation in lemon size of course ;) ) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This [13] is the edit I did not take kindly to. In this diff you will see that the IP user in question did not attempt to specify that 100 grams is the serving size needed for the discussed %DV. Additionally, in the following diffs you will see that Plantsurfer initially wholesale reverted here with a vague explanation of "meaningless quantitative statements" and added an unnecessary citation needed template (since this information is right in the standard nutrition chart on the right) [14] and then reverted later with a more specific reason (stating it was not readily apparent that the DV values mentioned, i.e., >20% DV) corresponded to the 100 gram serving specified in the nutrition chart (fair enough now that a specific criticism is raised in a civil manner though I counseled him to just fix it himself in the future instead of wholesale reverting/edit warring) [15]. 5 is now stating after hurling personal attacks that this was his rationale (not crediting Plantsurfer's) and continued to hurl personal attacks this morning after the changed he apparently wanted to see in the article was made [16]. Same user yesterday attempted to make Wikipedia threats in addition to the personal attacks, i.e., [17]. This person has zero credibility, just made reverts and attempted to insult/personally attack me (instead of fixing the problem himself/herself), and after the fact is trying to construct a coherent semantics argument based on a flawed analogy in order to divert attention from the obvious block evasion. Verbose comment now over. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's bizarre is that there was zero explanation for the purpose of the edits, only personal attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reported at WP:SPI. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, if you feel inclined in discussing/pursuing this further, see my last comment on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.155.176 (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RTA 408[edit]

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)[reply]

Trimmed mass of primary sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very old drugs, abandoned drugs[edit]

question 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)[reply]

Check out Oxolamine's entry in Meyler's Side Effects of Psychiatric Drugs. Also see previous versions of the British National Formulary for old drugs approved in the UK. -A1candidate 20:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[18] 2009 reference--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About one half of all drugs approved pre-1962 were withdrawn for lack of efficacy under the provisions of the Kefauver-Harris Amendments. Some info here but no list. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/FOrgsHistory/CDER/CenterforDrugEvaluationandResearchBrochureandChronology/ucm114470.htm#1951

Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 20:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks some of this was helpful! A1 thanks for the Meyers - the hallucinagenic stuff was covered elsewhere. (thanks for the link, ozzie!). I would love to get access to the British Formulary but my library doesn't get MedicinesComplete. A1 how do you access old versions of the formulary?
Formerly the Kefauver-Harris stuff is on the money but what got published of that is buried in the federal register which is really hard to work with (and they never published the work that the NAS committees produced which is ... just crazy). All that was published were summaries and decisions, in the Federal Register. And old federal registers are not indexed that i can find anywhere... you have to find a lead and look for clues in it about the next thing to go find, like i used to do research in the pre-computer era. But yes there is great stuff in that work product. (Check out Stanozolol#History which i built by digging through old federal registers from the internet archive.) I wonder if all the work got collected anywhere. That is part of what prompted my question. I wonder if there is a "Book of Abandoned Drugs" or the like that tells all the stories. That would be an amazing reference work ( to me anyway) Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what you need is a used book store: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=12693394037&searchurl=x%3D0%26y%3D0%26sts%3Dt%26kn%3Dmateria+medica Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 22:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

nope, but thanks for answering! Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Question[edit]

This 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)[reply]

User:John D. Rockerduck that is a "news release" not a review article. One can use pubmed and limit searches to review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so would this be an appropriate cite Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(2):152-159. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.267 or would this be an appropriate cite http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=382798? John D. Rockerduck (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a high quality primary source. We want you to use high quality secondary sources like review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me a link where I could find a review article for this study? and thanks for responding to my question John D. Rockerduck (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No that is an editorial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a high quality review which should have taken that paper into account [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is another high quality review [20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Poorly Reffed Content?[edit]

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)[reply]

User:Williamharris20 You mean this edit [21]?
The text had a number of issues
1) It was a case series which is not high quality evidence. We typically use review articles (Not the same as peer reviewed)
2) It was copied and pasted from the abstract which we do not allow.
Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine vs. Pro-vitamin B3[edit]

Nicotine 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)[reply]

you cannot just write what you think in Wikipedia. that is what we call "original research", which is not allowed here. Instead, information added to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. For things related to health, the guideline for what counts as a reliable source is this: WP:MEDRS. For content outside of health, the guideline is here: WP:RS. These policies and guidelines (and editors following them, together) are what Wikipedia the achievement that it is. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Danleonida if you have a high quality ref that says it all is good. That is the foundation of Wikipedia. If we use the best avaliable sources we may end up with the best avaliable content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Which 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)[reply]

This "Deficiencies in zinc, magnesium, chromium and B vitamins are common among women with PCOS.[1]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Zoe E CH (1998). "Polycystic ovarian syndrome: the metabolic syndrome comes to gynaecology". BMJ. 317 (7154): 329–32. PMID 9685283. {{cite journal}}: Vancouver style error: suffix in name 1 (help)

Job board take down accounts?[edit]

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)[reply]

Will email you details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron FAR[edit]

Hey, 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)[reply]

User:SandyGeorgia Adjusted a few things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My previous edit to the article 'condom'.[edit]

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)[reply]

User:Joey13952 alternate account it is not a prefered source. Better to use review articles Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You saw the source, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this [22] it is a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

your opinion/stance/position etc. on sources known to have an an agenda or bias?[edit]

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)[reply]

It is an exceedingly controversial topic. One of the most controversial on all of Wikipedia. Thus one needs to edit with care. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHO[edit]

Doc, do you really want generally to use WHO? [23] 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)[reply]

Generally yes. In the case of Tourette no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Unblocking[edit]

I 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)[reply]

If you are dealing with medical content sources needs to be of high quality per WP:MEDRS. Blogs are typically not suitable. Becoming an admin is hard. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Wikidata[edit]

I 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)[reply]

We often put them in the sister links section. All the languages are already on the left. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

facial esthetics.[edit]

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)[reply]

facial esthetics[edit]

please replace the text with the new article cited. thank you.199.188.193.216 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things.
1) We generally only use high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS
2) That book may be usable once it is published Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine/Cotinine page edits[edit]

Just 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)[reply]

(talk page stalker) you have one contrib here.. please do read WP:MEDRS and definitions there. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.Agrizz (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 -- Why MEDRS? Hopefully that will help you make sense of why we care so much about secondary sources for content related to health) Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 there is a 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. Agrizz (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oh you are a scientist! yes scientists have a hard time sometimes, when they first come here. there is a genre-confusion. this is an encyclopedia, not a place to essentially write a review article. really different genre. what we do here, is read the the most recent, independent, secondary sources on a topic we can get our hands on, consider what the mainstream view in the field is, and then summarize that in the wikipedia article. The mission of this place is to present all of human knowledge, for the general public. (crazy i know). For any article, we look to the relevant field and and as you know, reviews are where fields sort themselves out; where the productive paths are laid out. you know as well as i do that the basic literature is littered with stuff that turned out to be dead ends. there are so many reasons to not cite the basic literature.
please keep in mind that what we do and say, has to go for everybody, so we can be consistent. you wouldn't believe how often we have to deal with crazy people who have some pet theory that a given field gives no credence to, but who finds primary sources supporting that theory (you can find primary sources to support almost any idea in the biomedical literature) and pounds away, trying to jam that into WP. You can see that, right? relying on secondary sources, is how we are able to tamp down that sort of POV-pushing, as we call it. (This place attracts people who are advocates of all kinds of WP:FRINGE views)
Finally, you may want to have a look at WP:EXPERT which is advice for people like you. also, i don't know what field you work in, but there are all kinds of WikiProjects that focus on various things (WP:WikiProject Medicine (Doc James is one of the leaders of that), WP:WikiProject Pharmacology, WP:WikiProject Chemistry, WP:WikiProject Molecular Biology and others) that work together to improve and maintain the quality of articles in those fields) we always are looking for more experts to get involved - who know the field and know all the literature (especially the reviews) and can deploy them efficiently, and quickly see if WP:WEIGHT has gotten skewed in a given article and can fix it, or can identify holes that somehow never got covered, and fill them. there is so much work to do, and so little time. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your condescension aside, I can appreciate what you are saying here. However, my arguments come not from a poor understanding of the differences between scientific and encyclopedic writing styles. I suppose the main problem I see here is a generalization of credibility issues as they pertain to primary sources outside of peer-reviewed, or at least, biomedically peer-reviewed literature. The irony is that in biomedical research/literature, what makes a secondary source publication reputable (i.e. a "review", held in such high regard by wikipedia) is its inclusion of primary sources because it is at the level of the primary source where the most scrutiny is placed, not the secondary sources. Nonetheless, I can see I'm fighting a losing battle here, not only by your responses, but by the clear dogma present throughout the wikipedia links you have pointed me to.
A secondary concern that I've had throughout this is the fact that Doc James' edits of what I contributed have, in a way, misquoted me. I would appreciate this as a difference of opinion in a discussion, but it is clear from his blanket omissions of the content followed immediately by primary source citations that very broad strokes were taken in his editing process, not actually vetting the material closely. From my expertise on the topic, I believe that the content was already weighted poorly, and now, the weighting is still off, but in a different manner. @Doc James, I've deleted a sentence that I initially added (prior to having a username) that, following your edits, you left in (re: Parkinson's). If you were to know the literature as I do, I'm sure you would agree that this argument standing alone may offer too much weight to the argument that cotinine may be a therapeutic agent for this disease, which has not yet been validated in preclinical studies. In the context it was originally written, Parkinson's was the last of other, more concrete evidence and Parkinson's inclusion is based off of the successes seen in those studies.Agrizz (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James - As I am new to this, and being unsure if I've done this appropriately, I wanted to drop a note here. I've returned to the edits on the cotinine page, replacing some deleted information but citing with a secondary source rather than the primary ones. Agrizz (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agrizz we rely on the experts in the field who produce reviews to pick the most important primary sources and synthesize them. we as editors here in WP cannot do that - it is outside the scope of what Wikipedia policy allows us to do. (see WP:OR and especially the section on WP:SYN -- this is where encyclopedic writing is really different than writing a review. anyway. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog - what edits I provided were not original nor were they synthesized by me. They are all clearly argued in the citations I included. Agrizz (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
agizz, i was just reacting to your statement above, about "the irony......" not your edits. it is not ironic. it is the essential difference between the nature of this place (anonymous editors writing an encyclopedia) and writing a review out there in the real world. anyway, good luck! Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Agrizz I had some of my first edits declined as I used sources that were not of sufficiently high quality. Review articles generally give a much broader and often better idea of the state of medicine and thus we strongly prefer them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aneuploidy[edit]

You wrote:

"Aneuploidy is the presence in a cell of an abnormal number of chromosomes other than extra complete set of chromosomes."

I don't understand that. What does it mean? Is that a complete sentence? --Nbauman (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes needs an "s" User:Nbauman Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An "s" where? "sets"? I still can't figure it out. What does that mean? I don't see anything in the cited source to support that. --Nbauman (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lets have this conversation on the article talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One set is haploid [24], two sets is diploid, more than two sets is polypoid. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-editing[edit]

I've noticed that you help improve what I insert into articles and so I would like you to talk a look at: User:Bfpage/new PID content and reference before I include it the PID, BV, STI articles. The Very Best of Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  10:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look. Unsure what ref supports which bits of text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lung cancer[edit]

Hello, James. Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For You and Your Importance to the Project![edit]

The Medicine Barnstar
to Doc James for leading wikiproject Medicine as a recognized and trusted source of medical information.[25]Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Ozzie10aaaa. I wonder if that paper was looking at the German or English Wikipedia? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I tried to get the full article but couldnt--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes neither can I Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the full article. The authors were clearly looking at the German Wikipedia since they cited http://de.wikipedia.org and commented on the external links to AWMF guidelines, which are generally not found in medical articles here. -A1candidate 16:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P2Y12 inhibitors in NSTEMI[edit]

Doc James,

The paper you cited for evidence that P2Y12 inhibitors are not beneficial has major limitations. Firstly, it does not include any studies including ticagrelor (specifically PLATO) and also only uses one RCT using prasugrel (it does not include trilogy or triton).

P2Y12 inhibitors are of clinical benefit. That is repeatedly emphasised in clinical guidelines, and a widely held belief by many in the field of cardiology and therefore this point needs clarifying.

I'll be interested to read your reply.

Best Wishes

Hyoib — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyoib (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied here [26]. Lets continue the discussion there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ondansetron teratogenicity[edit]

The reference supplied seems to support the claim that ondansetron has caused birth defects. Why did you remove this relevant safety information from the article? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DavidLeighEllis The ref summary says "not what ref says and dealt with above". It is dealt with here [27]
Have found the better quality underlying ref and added its conclusions here [28].
I missed that one having just seen [29]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

OTRS emails[edit]

Hi Doc James. I noticed your comment at File:Early Dengue Fever Rash 2014.jpg (which I have deleted as the one at File:Early Dengue Fever Rash 2014.jpg on Commons has been OTRS verified) where you said, "OTRS for commons does not answer their emails". Unfortunately, both permissions-en and permissions-commons have perpetually backlogged queues because there are too few volunteers. The :en backlog is 0 days and the Commons backlog is given at Commons:Commons:OTRS/backlog. At Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Proposal_to_move_to_dated_pending_and_received_categories, we have some improvements to our processes to hopefully make us a little more efficient and try to prevent images on :en with {{OTRS pending}} from being deleted unless/until enough time has elapsed that the emails should have been received and processed. --B (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:B. The amount of work required to get a single high quality medical image released under an open license is substantial. Thus I would hope Commons admins would discuss things rather than just deleting images when they realize what a back log there is at OTRS. User:-revi thankfully has agreed to help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_78&oldid=1149837067"