Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 86

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

Leptospirosis[edit]

Hi Doc James,

I've noticed that you've reverted my edit. I just felt that the choice of words was a little too informal for an ecyclopaedic article, so i changed it. --Merlin G. (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with informal / easy to understand language in an encyclopedia? That is one of the things we can and should do better than most. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
User:LeThreep I did not receive anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sent it again but if you're still not receiving it, I'll post it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeThreep (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To my gmail account? Or through WP's email function? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sent it through wikipedia's email feature, wherever that sends messages — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeThreep (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My email is jmh649 at gmail I tested it and it works. So not sure what went wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I just sent it directly to your gmail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeThreep (talk • contribs) 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spam on Collagen Induction Therapy wiki page...[edit]

Hi Doc,

If the links that I added were spam...how are the other comments left there not spam? Like calling microneedling "the poor man's laser treatment"? If anything...why doesn't the laser treatment crowd worry about the Laser treatment wiki page, instead of badmouthing microneedling on the microneedling page? There ARE studies that have been done.

This seems highly unfair...I mean...should I go to the Laser treatment page and talk about all the propaganda that their crowd has left on the microneedling page to protect their interests/investments? I would be worried about all surgeries that “involve blood and potential infection” if I wasn't confident that doctors take precautions--but I am assured that they do. Just as licensed Estheticians take precautions. So why allow fear tactics...but no 'spam'?

This seems more like UBER vs cab drivers, in my humble opinion.

Thanks.

D — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkinCareCRL (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your association with the product in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no edit summary[edit]

you are not above the law here and [1] here , Mister. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes missed the edit summary, but saying they are the law is a little much Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine/Translation Taskforce inquiry[edit]

Hey Doc, how you been? I was wondering if you might be able to give me some insight concerning the sign-up procedure for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/Sign_up. As I wish to sign up, am I meant to add my name to the language in which I am most capable? I feel I might be of some use in this area, in that I have a background in both linguistics and physiology. I might be especially helpful in the areas of neurophysiology and the physiology of the senses, particularly with regard to translating between Germanic and Romance languages. Snow let's rap 09:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snow Rise we would love to have you join us. In this project we are translating from English to other languages. What other languages of Wikipedia do you edit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
Message added 21:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sundayclose (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on restoring the images that I removed. Sundayclose (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Sundayclose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Image-3 Suprapubic Catheter.png[edit]

You undeleted the image, which is now again nominated for deletion. I invite you to FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:George Ho Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing loss edits -> thank you![edit]

Wow! This article is FAR from scholarly, and I'm a newb on this topic. This article needs a book, but we're not going to write one. It looks like I have an expert to help me out. This is a top level article, and there's still a lot of stuff not covered, and referencing is weak to say the least. I also made a fauxpaux in including Central audio processing disorder in the article; this is also a hearing disability, but not a hearing loss, in the sense of progressive or acquired. We're born with it (or not). Maybe there should simply be a bullet item in the See also section for it. You didn't like the inclusion of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults info - that was the first kind of questionnaire the audiologist had me fill out. I's a screening too in the vernacular, as "what are you complaining about...do you have a hearing problem or not?" Perceptually, we may think we hear not as well as we used to; clinically, there may not be definable symptoms, hence the questionnaire. Where does this info belong (other section, other article, new article?).

Keep up the good work, I see you in a lot of medical articles. How do you have time for real life doctoring? Sbalfour (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sbalfour with respect to this topic we should try to follow
These are a good read if you have not go through them before.
With respect to the questionnaire, likely it should go in the section on screening. We should find a source to support its usefulness though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 November 2015[edit]

Acne vulgaris Question[edit]

Hi James, I was hoping you could give me your opinion about the acne vulgaris article's likelihood of passing as an FA given your previous experience with getting articles to FA status. If it isn't ready for FA, what more do you think is required? I'm also considering listing it for peer review to assess it for the FA candidacy as well. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes been noticing you have been doing a lot of work on it :-) Just have not got their yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning the article's not ready yet? What do you think it's most in need of at this point to get there? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning I have not had time to take a look at it yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I misunderstood you. No rush, please take your time. :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —S Marshall T/C 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

macular degeneration edits[edit]

You removed text for vitamin and antioxidant supplements for macular degeneration supported by at least three well known studies, the Blue Mountain Eye study, and the AREDS and AREDS2 studies (which were cited by wikilinked text to the wikipedia articles). These were already in the Research section, meaning not yet proven for clinical application, but neither are any of the the other research therapies. What's wrong with those studies, and including their results?Sbalfour (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is pretty damning: http://www.reviewofoptometry.com/content/c/47146/. But research is research. Isn't the fact that there is active research in this area worth mentioning, along with caveats as to validity and applicability? The National Eye Institute now recommends the AREDS formultion, and that could have an impact on Medicare and clinical practice for those covered.Sbalfour (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to try to use high quality secondary sources such as review articles published by journals with a reputation for accuracy per WP:MEDRS.
Using position statements by nationally recognized bodies is also appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have summarized a 2012 Cochrane review on the use of vitamin and mineral supplements as "It; however, may slow down the worsening of AMD" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you[edit]

We've edited Hearing loss and Macular degeneration together, and I appeciate your monumental (Wikidragon) efforts here and elsewhere where I've bumped heads with you. So here's for you. Sbalfour (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sbalfour has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Permission for images on Atopic Dermatitis[edit]

Thank you for your feedback about the images. I have permission from Derm101 to use these images on Wikipedia. How do I submit the permission? Nojo1113 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org User:Nojo1113 and feel free to cc me at jmh649 at gmail dot com Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used your publication as example[edit]

When adding an example at The Chicago Manual of Style, I found your JMIR 2015 article to be very useful (abbreviated middle names, multiple authors). I hope this is all right with you. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I do not pay attention really to the style of reference formatting. I just use what the edit box gives me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mikael Häggström (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 November 2015[edit]

Typo[edit]

Sore throat not spar

No idea what you mean? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different user: you made a spelling error in the third sentence of Polio. 2604:2000:71E7:8D00:4D50:36DE:8FF6:7554 (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IP:2604:2000:71E7:8D00:4D50:36DE:8FF6:7554. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 2604:2000:71E7:8D00:4D50:36DE:8FF6:7554 (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

Hi James. There were to reasons for reverting the edit on the Rift Valley fever article on Serbian Wikipedia: 1) there were some untranslated strings (like some strings in the infobox, but also heading titles) 2) the translated text was in Cyrillic, whereas the existing article text was in Latin script (it's against rules to mix the two in the same article). --Filip (§) 06:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay thank User:Dungodung. Now if we continue translating into Serbian would you want it all in Cyrillic or all in Latin script or is either okay? Or does one need to simply check the existing article before starting? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When translating an article from scratch (i.e. there's no existing article on srwiki), then the script doens't really matter. But when adding content to an existing article, you should check it before starting, or alternatively, use an online converter to transliterate between the two. --Filip (§) 06:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay User:Dungodung We will look into the converter bit and will check what format the existing article is in before hand. I know some languages have build tools that allow people to view the content in the script they wish. Does Serbian use this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Filip, I have a revised translation all in Serbian Latin. I will park that on the talk page. Can you please help merge this content onto the main space? Thanks. Lucas559 (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tinnitus retraining therapy edits[edit]

Thank you! You have a knack for simple language, and a keen eye for misstatement, including superfluous or irrelevant material. Though

I have tinnitus, and like everyone else, hope for some breakthru, or anything that'll help. I found this (miserable) poorly ref'ed article and decided to add what I knew to it, and added at least some better refs. The whole article is pseudoscience, and I fear that its place in the encyclopedia is tenuous. I shall not be the one to nominate it for deletion, but it is held in place only by many dubious and subjective primary studies. My own inquiries have discovered many exaggerated claims, and unreasonably high costs associated with treatment. Cost is not an appropriate topic for the article, but the high cost versus dubious benefit casts the clinical practice of TRT into the same arena as homeopathy.

I think the article categorization should be shifted out of medical categories, and into what? Alternative medicine, experimental psychology, homeopathy, ... or whatever. It's in categories 'Experimental medical treatments' and 'Ear procedures'. TRT is not a medical treatment, and ear procedures category is filled with things that have some physical or physiological procedure involved - TRT does not. Its membership in categories 'Audiology' and 'Clinical psychology' imply there's some established science behind TRT, when there is not. TRT's relationship to homeopathy, while not substance based, is by analogy: it treats 'bad' sound with similar 'good' sound (masking). TRT may fit in category 'Cognitive science', but only in the research sense - it's not science (yet), and the clinical practice of it isn't based on science OR psychology. Is it category 'Pseudoscience' alongside neurolinguistic programming? Pseudoscience is a perjorative category, likely to result in contention. Sbalfour (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We include a lot of stuff in WP:MED that is not main stream. We just need to balance the article in question. Yes more trimming needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Medical Condition Infobox[edit]

Yay! So happy to see this. Mini-hackathons are so worth it.
Do you want to hammer out a list of ~10 diseases to populate in Wikidata, with references, so that we can have more examples? I would say to try to include a variety of disease, e.g. infectious (malaria), cancer, monogenic etc. -- emitraka (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to figure out the mobile issue first it appears. The new lower box does not appear in mobile. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. But it looks like steps are being made to fix that. -- emitraka (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it will just take time :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tinnitus causes suicide (case report)[edit]

This statement appears in the article on Tinnitus: "In an extreme case a man committed suicide after being told there was no cure." You edited that statement, noting the dubious source. Yeh. So somebody says, but we don't know what other psychological or physical issues (hearing loss, brain damage, etc) the man might have had. I don't want to step on your toes over this, but how about replacing the anecdotal and sensationalist statement with something like: "While there are anecdotal reports of tinnitus implicated in suicides, a systematic study found no correlation between reported tinnitus and subsequent incidence of suicide. However the study did note the high incidence of psychological morbidity among the studied population." citing <Lewis JE1, Stephens SD, McKenna L. Tinnitus and suicide. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1994 Feb;19(1):50-4. PMID8174302>. Other studies also find only a tenuous/dubious link between suicide and tinnitus, noting confounding factors and comorbidities in the target population: <A Search for Evidence of a Direct Relationship between Tinnitus and Suicide, Jacobson and McCaslin, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 2001;12:493-96>, <Lewis J, Stephens D, Huws H. (1992). Suicide in tinnitus sufferers. J Audiol Med 1:30-37>, <Lewis JE, Stephens SDG, McKenna L. (1994). Tinnitus and suicide. Clin Otolaryngol 19:50-54>. It might be an issue of WP:TONE, and the existing text is scare-mongering.Sbalfour (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sbalfour great idea. The current source is poor. I really should have simply deleted it rather than just reworded it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyoscine (scopolamine)[edit]

Hi, re this page move, shouldn't it simply be hyoscine, instead of the hydrobromide salt? I guess that the answer depends on whether, for relatively simple molecules whose most important use is as medicines, we go with the underivatized molecule or the most common pharmaceutical form. If the latter, note that hyoscine is used in multiple forms: the hydrobromide (cf. the WHO ref you added [2]), the butylbromide (same source) and the methylnitrate (cf. [3]), which seems to argue for hyoscine as the parent article. Related: should the butylbromide aka butylscopolamine be merged in with hyoscine? If so I could write the draft. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes User:Middle 8. It should be "scopolamine hydrobromide" is the same as "hyoscine hydrobromide"[5]
As the WHO lists hyoscine butylbromide and hyoscine hydrobromide as seperate essential medications I think we should have seperate articles for them [6] Your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that makes sense... and we should expand hyoscine into its own article as well, for natural-product-related stuff like this: "It is among the secondary metabolites of plants from Solanaceae (nightshade) family of plants, such as henbane, jimson weed (Datura), angel's trumpets (Brugmansia), and corkwood (Duboisia)." That sentence is true for hyoscine but not the hydrobromide or butylbromide. Happy to help sort out the hyoscine-specific stuff... --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what should we call the third hyoscine? Maybe Hyoscine (chemical)? Than we would have one article for each of the medications and one for the chemical itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "chemical" part is understood, so just plain hyoscine and then at the top an {{About}} as we do for e.g. lithium. --173.73.149.51 (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most people are likely searching for the medications rather than the plant chemical thus the disambig. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true but.... if the chemical itself is important enough (that's what it comes down to), I think it's generally the parent article. Then Template:About at the top acts like a disambig, resulting in:

No strong feelings on this -- other than that Hyoscine (chemical) sounds wrong (redundant). I think Hyoscine (natural product) is better if you prefer having Hyoscine as the disambig page. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would be happy with Hyoscine (natural product) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought: Hyoscine, being the INN name, should be the title for the molecule (cf. WP:CHEMNAME), and the disambig page simply Hyoscine (disambiguation). That's how we do it everywhere else.
Example: Lithium (note the clarifier at the top), with Lithium (disambiguation), and then Lithium carbonate for the salt (also a WHO essential medicine). regards Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pimple revisions[edit]

Here is a 2007 review paper to couple with the removed reference on Triple Antibiotic Ointment efficacy against pimples. I will change the wording and give the information its own space for a better flow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyalmonds (talk • contribs) 08:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That paper does not mention pimples anywhere in it that I can find? User:Healthyalmonds Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A pimple is a type of skin trauma and is caused by a pathogen on the skin. Both things the review paper states TAO is effective against. Here is a third paper that talks about TAO effectiveness against pyoderma. This overview mentions topical antibiotics as safe and effective against acne. I'd be happy to add all four links to provide clarity.Healthyalmonds (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No a pimple is not a type of skin trauma. A pimple is also NOT pyoderma. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of PYODERMA: a bacterial skin inflammation marked by pus-filled lesions. That's the very definition of a pimple. Skin infections are a type of skin wound. You aren't disputing that, right?Healthyalmonds (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of a pimple is "is a kind of comedo and one of the many results of excess oil getting trapped in the pores". Oil is not puss.
I agree with the definition of pyoderma Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The information I referenced is accurate and appropriate. I will make the necessary revisions to the pimple wikipedia page to provide clarity to readers. Thank you for your input. Healthyalmonds (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holiday/New Year![edit]

Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness. Doc James may you have the best holidayOzzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Ozzie10aaaa for this. Good to have some holiday cheer from my Wiki family :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A well earned barnstar for you[edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For so many considerate things you've said, when I've screwed up so obviously. You're an inspiration to me.Sbalfour (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would want other editors to see that your gentle prodding does not go unnoticed, that you are a true inspiration to do my best. I get in a hurry, I leave things undone, make obvious bloopers, forget to cite, and sometimes generally make a mess of things I know little about. You not only fix up after me, you say the right things to not make me feel unwanted. So you well deserve this Barnstar.Sbalfour (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries User:Sbalfour :-) Happy to help. It has taken some time for all of us to learn to edit Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resources box variants[edit]

I see in gout you changed into a completely new template {{Medical condition classification and resources}} [7]. That switch is a bad idea, because now gout does not show the original proposal any more, and so comments &tc. are unrelated (they are not about the current version!). In other words: it makes that talk chaotic because no one knows who said what about what.

In general, mayor layout variant proposals like these better be done by separate version + its talk, not overwriting. Please first revert that gout edit, and start a fork in the talk for this issue (ie, a new section for this proposal, which allows comparing with the original one)

Also, IMO this show/noshow issue is very minor and can be discussed within the original proposal. It does not need a separate version. Once we decide we want that (show in m.), we can technically build & test that. No need to build testing variants. The beef is in the discussion.

-DePiep (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It should show in mobile. One version shows in mobile. The other version is horizontal. How do we combine these two? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant. One and only topic is: do we split the template aling the lines of proposal yes or no? Polluting the proposal with minor issues does not help towards consensus. -DePiep (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

copy/paste most of 29K lines in Treatment section of Cerebellopontine angle syndrome[edit]

On January 27, 2011, User:Pratyushchaudhuri made a single massive 29,988 character contribution to the article, his first, last and only edit to wikipedia. He has no user or talk page. Some of that text was copy/pasted from here, with slight reordering and interspersed with joinery text. I can stop here - it's bad enough to call it copyvio. I suspect that most of the remainder is also copy/pasted from elsewhere. If I delete that whole section, some other editor will undo and warn me for section blanking (editors have automated software to check for this). However, you are an administrator, and another editor will not likely challenge an administrator, especially if the action is copyvio removal. If you concur, and would rather I do the dirty work, I will, but I don't want to get into a contentious edit war.Sbalfour (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks copied from http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/882876-treatment I have deleted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin C - reasons for undo please[edit]

I accept that the mildly humorous 'common cold from a week to 7 days' was perhaps too light-hearted for some but it was a direct quote from my own doctor! Can you explain your particular concerns with my comments? Can you explain how my comments should have been written so as to remain included. If you do not approve of my comments in this article, then where should they be placed. Is there any point in placing my comments in the article's 'Talk' section so they may be debated / amended for inclusion.

As a wider issue, I continue to be mildly concerned at the number of amendments that I and my friends suffer without explanation. Our efforts are well-intended; we believe they contribute to the improvement of the article - yet (some of) our efforts are rebuffed and rebutted without any apparent cause.

Thanks JK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojoking (talk • contribs) 10:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You copied and pasted from the source [8]. And additionally the source is not very good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with WP:MEDRS[edit]

Dear Sir, couldn't You help me to learn some matters about WP:MEDRS policy of English Wikipedia? We have a lot of debate in Russian Wikipedia concerning possible policy about biologically active substances, and I try to make a case study of English Wikipedia WP:MEDRS policy. Specifically I want to learn:

  • Why English Wikipedia decided to care about possible harm to people, when there are WP:DISC, WP:RISK etc? In particular, was the policy proposed because of purely moral concerns or it reflects some legislatory restrictions (like WP:BLP)?
  • Did anybody oppose such a policy because of fear, that basic principles of wikipedian freedom (especially WP:CENSORED) could be compromised?
  • Did anybody claim that any proposal intented to prevent harm to public violates WP:DISC and therefore is completely illegal in Wikipedia?

Thank You! Эйхер (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We use WP:MEDRS because primary sources are often conflicting or overstate a position and a good review article typically better represents the position of the academic community on the topic.
This has nothing to do with potential harm per say. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 December 2015[edit]

CFS Page: "UK siatuaiton"[edit]

Hi Doc James, This section mentions criticism of psychologically oriented approaches to CFS by patients. It is odd to mention this without mentioning the nature of the criticisms. Gives the appearance of bias against patients' perspectives. The whole paragraph, as its stood before I edited, appeared to be designed to make patients look like they are critical for wholly mysterious and irrational reasons, and are all dangerous and not to be taken seriously. I think we either delete the paragraph, or we add balance. I also think any medical page must demonstrate respect for patients it describes; this section seems to violate this simple principle. Perhaps my efforts to modify were not that great. What are your views on how this could be done?

--Wilshica (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We mention that the issue was researchers looking at "psychologically-oriented models of the disease and behavioral treatments" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vestibular schwannoma article is substantially copy/pasted[edit]

I started editing the article, to fill in missing things, but in hunting for references, I discovered time and again, large pieces of text copy/pasted from the cited sources, particularly the ANA (Acoustic Neuroma Association) sources. I just don't think these are public domain. Take the whole 'Balance' section, for example - copy/pasted word for word. I'm disgusted. I think 60-75% of the article is copy/pasted, or was copy/pasted before incremental edits resulted in partial paraphrasing. I'm at a standstill, because the whole article is compromised. Separating the piecemeal original portions from the copyvio'ed portions will likely leave nothing worth keeping. What should I do? What would you do? My post here now puts us and other watchdogs on notice; we can't passively move on.Sbalfour (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - you've already commented on this issue on the talk page. But I'm also right: 95+% of his article is copy/pasted from Acoustic Neuroma Association sources without citation to the original studies, or solid review studies. ANA cannot be an acceptable [medical citation]. The standard for [medical citation] is very high. I've made many errors myself in citing medical articles. All but maybe 2 of the references are to the ANA pamphlets. I propose deleting all citations to ANA pamphlets, and citing such sources as I can find. You wouldn't cite ANA in your articles, I know. Your standards are impeccable. I'm sure the intentions here are good, that is, editors acted in good faith. But I can't buy what was done here. I'm going to wikidragon-like fix things here. If I'm undone, I'm going to forsake editing medical articles.Sbalfour (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes was donated and I see by who. Yes if you wish to improve it and base it on better sources that would be good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Talk:ADHD modifications[edit]

Where are you seeing that it is copied and pasted? The other editor before told me where I had referenced Nadeau it was too similar.. I changed all of those references, and re-worded them. I'll make sure to put the references after punctuation and change the titles. What other problems are you seeing so I can just do this in one go.

I'll find other sources and try it again.

Satans-doyly (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You propose "Because ADHD is so common (3% to 5% of school children) and chronic (lifelong in many cases), even a small proportion of females multiplied by such a large base means hundreds of thousands of girls and women are living with ADHD, a significant public health problem" while ref says "Because ADHD is so common (3% to 5% of school children) and chronic (lifelong in many cases), even a small proportion of females multiplied by such a large base means hundreds of thousands of girls and women with ADHD, a significant public health problem." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to American Ginseng[edit]

I am very grateful that you helped fix some of the minor errors that were in my update to the Wiki page as I am not familiar with how to fix most of these problems. However I do have a few questions as to some of the edits that you made. Why did you change the unranked class and division back to the way that was originally posted. It is recognized by the USDA as the more modern terms. Granite your terms are not incorrect just appear to be outdated in a new generation of ecologists. Also why did you remove most of the pictures from the website that were from the USDA sources. These are government sources and can be freely used on Wikipedia. Once again thank you for editing my research and making my publication stronger and more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MW255HS (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies User:MW255HS, your edits were caught up in some poor quality edits by someone else. I have restored those other changes you made. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

[9] I thought "tap" only applied to withdrawing fluid and testing pressure but not injecting anesthetics etc. Not so, apparently. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is used for all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry[edit]

Hi, Doc James.

Blocked user Lagoset has created a new user, named Fivestarts. The relationship is already confirmed in Spanish Wikipedia.

He is evading the blockade here and again including spam, etc. Other users had reverted some of his edits, like here and here, but there are still many others for review.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is already blocked in Spanish Wikpedia. I opened investigation here. I do not know if I've done it well... It is the first time I do it here, in the English Wikipedia.
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LASIK and cataract[edit]

Hello. You have reversed my edit: LASIK and cataract. I cited a review article: Demographics of patients having cataract surgery after laser in situ keratomileusis, Kei Iijima, MD, Kazutaka Kamiya, MD, PhD, Kimiya Shimizu, MD, PhD, Akihito Igarashi, MD, PhD, Mari Komatsu, MD, PhD. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015; 41: 334-338 2015 Q ASCRS and ESCRS. If you provide me your e-mail address I can send the entire article, along with some of the studies it cited. If you do not agree with the conclusions, I encourage you to contribute others studies on this topic to the Lasik article. Thank you Doc James.--Javiergeografo (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a primary source [10] not a literature or systematic review User:Javiergeografo. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read it completely? It refers to the results of other five studies: 1. Saiki M, Negishi K, Kato N, Ogino R, Arai H, Toda I, Dogru M, Tsubota K. Modified double-K method for intraocular lens power calculation after excimer laser corneal refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013; 39: 556–562. 2. Tang M, Wang L, Koch DD, Li Y, Huang D. Intraocular lens power calculation after previous myopic laser vision correction based on corneal power measured by Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38:589–594. 3. Awwad ST, Kelley PS, Bowman RW, Cavanagh HD, McCulley JP. Corneal refractive power estimation and intraocular lens calculation after hyperopic LASIK. Ophthalmology 2009; 116:393–400. 4. Li Y, Dai H, Zhang YZ, Gao Y, Wu T, Li WD, Zhang SM, Xu SP, Zeng Y, Xie DX, Guo JH. [Intraocular lens power calculation after corneal refractive surgery]. [Chinese] Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi 2008; 44:899–901. 5. Randleman JB, Foster JB, Loupe DN, Song CD, Stulting RD. Intraocular lens power calculations after refractive surgery: consensus-K technique. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33:1892–1898.--Javiergeografo (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its design is a "DESIGN: Retrospective case series." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This retrospective review of data was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), Kitasato University. And it explains the results very plausible way. There are several possible explanations for earlier cataract surgery in post-LASIK eyes. First, post-LASIK eyes tend to have significantly longer axial lengths (ALs) than eyes in the entire population. Eyes with longer ALs frequently are affected by cataract formation earlier than those with normal ALs. In this study the mean age at the time of cataract surgery in the ALmatched group was approximately 5 years younger than in the entire population. Second, based on the subgroup analysis, the rate of corneal higher-order aberrations (HOAs) in post-LASIK eyes was significantly higher than in the other 2 groups. As evidenced by this and previous studies, the increase in corneal HOAs might accelerate a deterioration in visual performance because of the increase in lens-induced HOAs caused by aging. Third, the manifest spherical equivalent in post-LASIK eyes at the time of cataract surgery was significantly more myopic than in the entire population, implying that a considerable amount of myopic regression occurred after LASIK because the target for LASIK is usually emmetropia or slight myopia. This myopic shift could also contribute to an earlier need for cataract surgery because patients having LASIK tend to place importance on uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA). In addition, LASIK may increase the corneal scattering.--Javiergeografo (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I read WP:MEDRS. And I think that in the absence of a literature reviews or systematic reviews, for I find none, our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. I think Wikipedia improves if we incorporate this subject with the available scientific evidence. The alternative is to remove a subject that it seems important and sufficiently tested. Occasional exceptions may apply. And it has been published in Journal of Caratact & Refractive Surgery, which is backed by American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, and European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons. Best.--Javiergeografo (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If no review comments on this, I have trouble believing it is notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If no review comments on this, it is because these studies are very recent. This study is of this year, and the oldest of 2007. And that is because LASIK has only two decades, and cataracts need time to form.--Javiergeografo (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 December 2015[edit]

Re: Edits on "Fred Kahn"[edit]

Hi James,

Appreciate you checking out the page and providing edits. I am new to the posting and editing world of Wikipedia.

I understand that you have some issues with my image ownership and relation to Fred Kahn etc. Firstly I can assure you that I do have ownership rights on those images I used. Secondly, yes, I am an employee of Dr. Kahn, however I am creating this page about him in order to fulfill requests by several of his patients who were curious as to why they couldn't find any information on his life on Wikipedia.

I can see that you have taken down quite a lot of the work I did on the page. I was trying my best to provide an unbiased biography. I would appreciate any help/insight you can provide to me that would allow me to post some of that information back up without having any further issues.

You own those images? You will need to send release to WP:OTRS. Also please read WP:COI. As an employee of Khan it is not really okay for you to write the article about them. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_86&oldid=1144768196"