Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 70

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72→Archive 75

Query

Hi. What is your rationale for making this edit, please? --John (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This was the text "A 2014 systematic review found that, in depressed patients, acupuncture combined with SSRI's outperformed patients recieving on SSRI's alone." and this was the ref [1]. The ref is NOT a systematic review. It is a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, DocJames is correct here, I posted it and it wasn't a systematic review. It was an oversight on my part and I agree with his edit. But I would like to know his thinking in 'this edit, which deleted two secondary sources. This was the source DocJames claimed was a primary source. I also never received an explain action for this edit which was not actually a Cochrane reviewMilliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks both of you. I appreciate the clarification. Jmh649, what do you say to Milliongoldcoinpoint's questions? --John (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Great questions regarding this text here:
The first is a systematic review is an exceedingly low impact journal (thus the "ref with very poor impact facture"
The second is a primary source [2] again described as a "secondary analysis"
You will notice that it is discussed in detail here [3]
And that I added a much higher impact / reliable source here [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Now for the good news. We have a new 2013 Cochrane review here [7] and I will update. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Milliongoldcoinpoint an issue that appears to be present is the selection of sources from low quality journals that support a specific POV such as in this edit here [8] Why did you not choose a high impact / mainstream journal since there are a bunch of sources from this journals that cover this exact question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Edit summaries

Could you please include an edit summary when you submit your changes? I notice that you left empty edit summaries for a number of your recent edits. It's so much more helpful to other editors if the edit summary describes the changes made than if it's left blank. Thanks! --Ca2james (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes forget sometimes. Expecially for minor edits such as these [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

CNT - caps may be preferable

Hi Doc, at acupuncture I believe "Clean Needle Technique (CNT)" is a proper noun as it is a formal training and exam we do, required before board exams in the US. We also generally say we do "clean technique" rather than sterile. Thanks for considering.Herbxue (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are correct clean technique is better as it is not sterile Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

refs on "common cold"

Hi - regarding your reversion of my long-cite to Eccles in Common Cold. I understand that the full cite for Eccles is given in the "further reading" at bottom. However, typical academic style for footnotes is to give a full citation the first time a reference is used, and then the short citation for subsequent references (see Chicago Manual §14). That is why I changed the first cite. I suppose an alternative would be to turn the first cite into a link to "further reading" per Help:Shortened_footnotes.

Ah sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Caucasian at Skin cancer

Hello, with this edit, you reverted a change I had made a few moments ago and I was confused. Your edit summary said "This is global not just US." The edit I had made was to pipe Caucasian which is a disambiguation page so that it linked to White people which is not about the US. I don't know dermatology, but I assume the group that should be linked to is people with less melanin in their skin. Is there a better link for that? Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 05:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that it's already taken care of. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 05:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup my mistake. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think I promote the support groups.

I edit herpes support groups because many people with herpes want to search out the support groups in their area. I do think that site collect the most comprehensive support groups,herpes dating sites, and std clinics in each state and most countries. We need provide the right information for our members, right? Please keep my edit for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerpesPal com (talk • contribs) 02:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

We need independent sources. We are not a self help guide. People can find support groups with Google. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Malnutrition, dehydration, . . . and poker reads.

Hi Doc James,

I really think the overlap of malnutrition and diarrhea/dehydration is big time public health, and something I want to do more work on.

As a nonphysician, I find the WHO approach rather counter-intuitive: ignore the diarrhea and let it run its course BUT do prevent and treat dehydration. And I find the recommendation to continue eating during diarrhea really counter-intuitive. But okay, it helps to speed recovery of normal intestinal function and gets at least some nutrients absorbed. Alright, this may not be what I expected, but I can roll with it.

And speaking just as a poker player, when the Bangladeshi guide states that a malnourished/dehydrated child may have elevated pulse and breathing but with rehydration, this will sometimes start to drop back to normal and other times stay elevated. But if pulse or breathing further elevates, that is a sign of over-hydration <---Now, that is a poker read and that's as good as gold. Cool Nerd (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I guess I have been involved with this so extensively for so long that I see eating as simple the right thing to do. Over hydration resulting in congestive heart failure from too much fluids in a child with nausea vomiting and diarrhea? Never heard of this.
User:Cool Nerd what do you think of the name change to "undernutrition" "undernourished" ? It is the term the Lancet papers use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"undernutrition" is a weird medical term, at least it is to me on first glance. In everyday usage, malnutrition means people who don't get enough to eat.

As far as over-hydration flooding the circulation and potentially causing heart failure <--- this is limited to malnourished persons. Either WHO or the Bangladeshi guide is pretty clear about the danger. Cool Nerd (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241593180.pdf

8. MANAGEMENT OF DIARRHOEA WITH SEVERE MALNUTRITION

page 23 (27 in PDF)

" . . Rehydration should usually be by mouth; an NG tube may be used for children who drink poorly. IV infusion easily causes over-hydration and heart failure; it should be used only for the treatment of shock. . "

Yes agree with that bit. It does occur in the refeeding of those with severe malnutrition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Called refeeding syndrome. Can be really bad. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Doc James, on thinking about it, maybe 'malnutrition' is such a general term, that under-nourishment would be better (and I do think the hyphen would help with readability) Cool Nerd (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes malnutrition seems to be the more used term so maybe we should keep the article called that and than just use undernutrition after that. Happy with the hyphen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

EBM

Thanks for your comments on Alt Med & Editing WP. I believe you do apply the bar of evidence to treatments, procedures etc. equally. The same may not be true of others but that is not your problem. It also occurs to me that as a tertiary source WP is limited in discussing the efficacy or evidence base for a given treatment etc. by needing to have this studied or at least reported on by sources.

(cmt) As the BMJ article pointed out a vast quantity of mainstream medical treatments / practices have not been researched. As an RN in the ICU at an urban Level I trauma center I hope to see studies done to evaluate current practices as well as new treatments etc. developed through evidence based medicine. I see a variety of practices that are based on anything from familiarity to the latest high quality review. Some of those based on familiarity or common practice may be excellent and I would like to see them studied, understood and supported with evidence. Some may be less than ideal or even harmful and I would like to see them studied and abandoned. I am pleased to be able to say the Trauma Team where I work is very into EBM. In fact most of the physicians I have (and do) work with make a substantial effort to remain current. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes sometime we just report what is typical practice and there are plenty of textbooks that do this. Agree this is often not exactly evidence based. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Autism

I understand that you work in the medical field, but you are not specifically an expert on autism. If you know of another administrator with a more relevant skill set, please direct their attention to whatever you feel needs to be addressed. Until then, please stop applying draconian reversions to edits that are simply cleaning up messy wording. Muffinator (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for further input at WT:MED
I do know that writing Wikipedia using the "private language" of the autistic community is not what we are doing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you direct me to the Wikipedia guideline page that mentions "private language"? Given that articles on Deaf culture use "hearing person", "allistic" is not unprecedented. Muffinator (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Lets continue the discussion on WT:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have started a discussion thread on the administrators' noticeboard because I believe you are abusing your privileges. Muffinator (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Translation Newsletter

Hey, I just took the newsletter live, and was wondering if you could MassMessage it? Currently the list might have duplicates, is that a problem? Thanks, -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to do thus. User:Ocaasi is the expert. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

controversy?

Hey James :) I don't think there is a substantial controversy, except perhaps for how they're counted epidemiologically. But I'm happy to be persuaded. Best, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I think this page is an excellent new entry! :)86.128.169.211 (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
If some count / classify them as cancer and others do not than there is a controversy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about that... Do you have a reliable source for that, which actually mentions "controversy"? I think that's something else with respect to differences (presumably clearly explained to readers) in statistical counts. —86.128.169.211 (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Lets continue on the talk page, but yes excellent point :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Could I request your indulgence just for a moment? I'll try to explain in the edit summaries (so much quicker). And then talk if need be :) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff this. Back tomorrow if that's ok :) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup makes ones head spin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it's really worth following through, imo... Incidentally, makes me wonder about the best way of addressing relevant social debates on MED pages in such a way as to get appropriate coverage of the significant POVs. A real issue perhaps for key controversial topics like Error and Harm??. Iatrogenesis (a distinct topic, imo) is a real mess from this, erm, point of view. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
On a related topic... Breast cancer screening#Criticisms this needs medrs attention too. The subject matter is relevant but the section has a lot of unsourced pov statements. —86.128.169.211 (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
So much needs better refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, though I'm not sure that link is more helpful to most readers than no link at all. Best, —86.128.169.211 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi James. Fyi, it's still me working on the esophageal cancer update. I felt it would have been superfluous to specify that on the article talk page, but I was clearly wrong (I'll know better another time). 109.156.204.159 (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries. We need to start enforcing some policies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
That made me laugh :) 109.156.204.159 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical references

Hi thanks for the links and advice. I am citing references that are cited in the Oxford Textbook of Endocrinology and Diabetes. Do you think referencing the textbook would cover the guidelines? I pretty much just say exactly what the textbook says and should be accused of plagiarism. You can see it on google books around pages 583-585. Preceole (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing the textbook is better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Silent migraine

Do you have sources stating that migraines inherently entail headaches? The fact that acephalgic migraines exist and carry the name suggests otherwise. I'd support clarifying that migraines almost always include headache, but it seems they headache is not an inherent symptom.

Exercisephys (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We discuss "silent migraines" in the signs and symptoms section already. Not sure why it was placed in pathophysiology. Anwyay would appreciate you joining the discussion on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffinator (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Agmatine

Dear Dr. Heilman,

I have just become aware of the changes made to the WikiProject on Agmatine.

I recognize some of the concerns raised about my upgrading revision. Before this revision however, the article about agmatine has remained for years below any standard for any half respectful encyclopedia.

Nevertheless, the substantial deletions you have made are completely unjustified. They have left the article without most of the pertinent information about this important subject. As a result, readers are left ignorant of essential information. And Wikipedia is thus, losing credibility.

I would therefore, like to suggest the following: 1. Unless you find real misinformation or flaws in the article, please restore the article to its June 20, 2014, version. 2. I will then supply citation to original studies, rather than to reviews in order to satisfy Wikipedia "rules"; and will provide references for or modify, or delete, any statement that may suggest bias. 3. It is extremely important for those in the field of agmatine research that advances in the field will be adequately and accurately presented in an unbiased way!

Thank you in advance for your prompt response.

Best regards, 108.185.129.48 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Gad

P.S. I am not an experienced contributor to Wikipedia and would appreciate any specific suggestions you may have.

Gad M. Gilad, Ph.D. Research, Gilad&Gilad LLC 19020 Kittridge St., Unit 1, Reseda, CA 91335 Tel: 1-818-708-8505; Cell: 1-323-599-0774 Email: gmg@GiladandGilad.com; www.ForNerveHealth.com

On Wikipedia we need to use secondary sources for health care content. These are typically review articles or major textbooks. We do not typically allow the use of primary sources for health content. This is per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"Popular press"

(Re: Sodium benzoate and Parkinson's) The Bureaucracy of wikipedia is causing so many contributors to leave. Right at the top of the ref it says: "Study Results Published in the Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology". Did you even bother to look at the ref? I don't have access to the Journal. If you do, then fix the ref, but removing it completely is very lazy and inappropriate. I'm going to try to fight the Bureaucracy and put the info back, but deletionists really need to do some soul searching. Ariel. (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The study that is quoted is a "primary source". We need to use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Also the study does not support the text you added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle

I don't understand why my recent edit in cancer was reverted. Is it not relevant? Petergans (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The cancer article is for a general overview. The book you added is too specific. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The book itself contains 30+ references to some 20 different cancers. I've put it into further reading. Petergans (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I still do not see the significance in an article that is a general overview. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to say I agree, even in FR. There might be a more specific article it works for. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The significance relates to an aspect of the biochemistry of cancers, which otherwise gets no mention.Petergans (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Should go on carcinogesis page if anywhere than. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that you, as a clinician, take too narrow a view. We, as chemists, must must consider all aspects of the chemistry when attempting to develop new chemotherapeutic agents or understand the how existing agents act. That's why this book deserves a mention in further reading. This discussion is now closed as far as I'm concerned. Petergans (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

No Conflict with Secondary Sources

I will next put a review in, staying in line with medrs. I do not believe there is a secondary source for claims on Multiple Sclerosis or Autism. If you can find one, then please put it in. Since the effect on multiple sclerosis is so robust, I find your adherence to a guideline to be offensive in this case. 75.152.127.40 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If there is no secondary source it is likely questionable. This is not a great source [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
That duz not follow. WP:MEDRS haz misled you to believe in more research conflict than there iz. More than one source iz for the same information: Breastfeeding does not cause autism or multiple sclerosis. If you want to do something non-competitive, then you will find something with risk ratios of lactation for diabetes in mother and child. 75.152.127.40 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 World Cancer Report

Hi James. Could you possibly email me a copy of the above if you have it, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

K Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Causes

Hi James. As the OP of the original thread, I just wanted to let you know (along with any interested talk-page stalkers) that I'm very interested to continue the discussion of the implications of that, but right now I'm pretty ko and it's not so easy for me to participate in the way I'd like. Hope to be back in a few days time. Fwiw, where I'm coming from is basically this: 1) yes, simple language is good; 2) but at the end of the day we need to make sure we (as Wikipedians) reflect rather than create; 3) maybe we need some tweaks to do this. Best, 109.157.86.177 (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes no hurry. We have a lot of our sources to emulate. BUt we also have a bit of our own style per WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The concern is that when implementing our own style we don't unintentionally skew the sense of the sources. (It's not that we have to emulate anyone; we do need to convey meaning correctly.) 109.157.86.177 (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter


Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery


This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.

note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

IEG grant
CFCF - "IEG beneficiary" and editor of this newsletter.

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

  • Swedish
    Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
    Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
  • Dutch
    Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
  • Polish
    Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
    (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
  • Arabic
    The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.
Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [13]

News in short

To come
  • Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
  • Proofreading drives

Further reading



Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Research

Hey Doc James, I wanted to get your opinion on something re: endometrial cancer. I really appreciate your help over there, by the way! :) I've been relying pretty heavily throughout on Comprehensive Gyn, which has some discussion of current research into immunotherapy for endometrial cancer. Since the textbook obviously meets MEDRS, is it okay to include a section on some research (using tamoxifen for Her2/neu positive cancers and instigating a tumor-specific response in papillary serous carcinoma, among others)? I can send you the chapter if you don't have it and want to see what I'm working with. Thanks! Keilana|Parlez ici 00:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes a Research section at the end is a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at it once I've finished? Keilana|Parlez ici 00:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I should be able to get someone here to do so also if you want. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@Wiki CRUK John: That would be fantastic! Thank you! I should have something fairly decent within a few weeks. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)#History

You reverted an edit citing WP:MEDMOS but it's unclear to me what part of MEDMOS you believe indicates that a history section cannot be moved up closer to the top of the article. Can you explain, please? Perhaps there's something in there I missed. Msnicki (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

We have a usual ordering of sections and history goes new the bottom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not really an answer. You cited WP:MEDMOS. I could not find any indication that it dictates or even recommends any particular ordering of the sections and apparently you couldn't find one either. If indeed there is no such guidance, then your edit remark should not have falsely cited that guideline, in which case, I'm inclined to agree with the other editor and revert you. In my experience, history is usually one of the very first sections in most articles that have such a section. Before I revert, do you have additional remarks? Msnicki (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Read the guideline in question [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Not good enough. That specifies suggested sections. It does not state that this is the suggested order. Further, this list doesn't even the topics in this article. I don't think this is a "drugs, medications and devices" article as envisioned by that list. I'm reverting, but I'll open it for further discussion on the talk page. Msnicki (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
You could ask others opinions regarding if this is also the suggested sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Gastroenterology

Why did you do this revert? It seems like a reasonable addition to the article.--Srleffler (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User was adding the same links to multiple pages. These are not any more notable than dozens of others. We are not a collection of internal links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cannabis (drug). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Msnicki (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It seems like there is finally some discussion regarding the controversial change you were trying to make. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Surrogate outcome

I wish to complain about the flags made by Formerly 98 in the article "surrogate outcome".

Formerly 98 finds the article is unbalanced and against the pharmaceutical industry. He found the part benefits of surrogate outcomes was too "small".

He finds there are not enough secondary source references in the part examples of surrogate outcomes, despite the multitude of references and cross references. Please compare to the article "clinical outcomes" which has only 4 low quality references.

He finds I never answer tho his complaints and 1 week later he refuses to answer to my responses. See at the talk page. I responded point by point.

To make the article more balanced he added a table with fourteen FDA approved drugs in 2008-2009 on surrogate outcomes and he looked for their meaningful outcomes. Only two drugs possibly added value: the arthemeter combination and an antiviral for HIV. So this makes the text no more balanced.

I added content to the section benefits to expand it from 26 lines to 50. For me the value of surrogate outcomes in rct's is obvious, you can find them everywhere in the litterature. But for him this is not enough.

Formerly 98 also finds surrogate outcomes have nothing to do with adverse events of treatments. For this reason he deleted many of the examples.

He added content to the parts of hepatitis C and B which makes them unreadable. He added meta analyses which combined (few) rcts, prospective studies and cc studies as proof of efficacy. But in his user page he says he hates meta analyses... But in fact he doesn't know the difference between a cochrane systematic review and a meta analysis. I cite formerly 98: "The statement "Systematic reviews should not present surrogate outcome data as their primary analysis" is clearly not mainstream as 90% of published meta analyses do exactly that. The article should be mostly representative of mainstream opinion."

Formerly 98 doesn't understand what a surrogate is. In the figure added by him he confounds a treatment (cardiovascular revascularisation) with a surrogate (coronarography). I asked him to correct it. He didn't answer. As an expert on antibiotics (ciprofloxacin) he says: " Antibiotic trials are performed on the basis of the well established surrogate endpoints of physical signs and symptoms of infection. If we required a mortality endpoint in every clinical trial, the shortage of new antibiotics would become more acute, as the cost of developing drugs for infections that have mortality <10% with the current standard of care would rise into the billions of dollars." Again he confounds the surrogate MIC, culture antibiogram with the meaningfull clinical outcome which is resolving of the symptoms, (morbidity) and mortality. He thinks only mortality is a clinical meaningfull outcome.

I asked also to revise the importance of the item surrogate outcome.

I wanted also to make a new article "meaningful (real) clinical outcome". Is this possible? The article "clinical outcome" should be completely revised.

Formerly 98 found "The problems throughout are WP:OR, WP:OS and WP:COAT."

My answer was:

  • Wikipedia: original research: the item of problems with surrogate outcome is not original research by me; it was found throughout searches about the item in systematic reviews found by a search strategy essentialy based on Dare, trip database and cochrane. I tried to confront them with Nice and other guidelines in an international context. I never give my personnel opinion about the evidence . I sometimes confront evidence. I found it interesting to confront two systematic revies of biphosphonates. The reader (patients and doctors) should make individual decisions about this evidence. I try always to refer to cochrane summaries if they exist, because they are easy readable by wikipedia users.
  • Wikipedia "oversight", (the power to suppress edits, is entrusted to a restricted number of users,) . I don't care some edits were deleted because they were not from secundairy sources. But the item of surrogates is not so easy as let say ciprofloxacin. It involves the whole area of medecine. Finding relyable secundary sources about the item is not easy. One example of a deletion was the removal in the lead of an editorial about evidence based making of mini reviews in the field of haematology. I removed it and added excerpts from the cochrane handbook of systematic reviews, which explained exactly the same. Maybe this handbook too is not a secundary source?
  • Wikipedia Coatrack (articles run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced). I agreed and suggested formerly 98 should write the part benefits of surrogates. Maybe beginning with looking at the benefits of hepatitis C treatments, because i had problems to find them in hepatitis B and in hepatitis C. So i have put this part in the problems section. If he did find better proof he could change it to the benefits.

So i ask you to discuss al those things with other editors, and to give me advise how to proceed further, because formerly 98 doesn't want to discuss with me anymore, and he certainly will not remove flags.

Formerly 98 last lines were: "You've written 165 KB of rambling, opinionated editorial that no one is going to read anyway, and its not really worth my while to spend any more time trying to introduce some balance. I'll focus my efforts on articles that are likely to be read."

Recently i got two stroop wafles from JPW and someone else for the high value of my content. I added content to more than 40 articles.

Sincerely yours --Truebreath (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Will look in a bit. Need some sleep first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Robyn Roche-Paull, BS, IBCLC, La Leche League Leader, USN

Her IBCLC means that she studied tertiary sources. Her page cites primary sources. She verified the primary sources with original research. Her claim follows from earlier claims in the article that nursing on demand increases supply. Where do you get off making claims against her reliability? 108.181.136.221 (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This [15] is not a reliable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You did not answer my question. You just repeated your claim. What makes you so sure? 172.219.255.66 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome to ask for another opinion here WT:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ketamine

Hi,

I'd like to thank you for taking a legitimate interest in accurate knowledge about Ketamine. Sounds like we may be sharing some of the same interests. I would make you aware of the following situation - the use of ketamine to treat physical and emotional pain is exploding in the US. Where there were a couple of clinics 18 months ago, there are now dozens of commercial clinics and probably hundreds of physicians in private practice trying ketamine. To get an idea, we run one of the first clinics and have as PATIENTS three physicians, two psychologists and two psychiatric nurses. There are literally over a thousand patients who have been treated successfully for depression on a clinical basis in the US. We have several patients from Canada that come to our Scottsdale, AZ clinic. Unfortunately, most clinics are not oriented to keeping good enough outcome measures to support publishable results.

On the research level, most of the money and time in pharma in now spent on neurogenesis and how to duplicate that portion of the functionality of ketamine. Very, very little of that research is published and available for citing as it is proprietary and used in drug development.

Wiki is seriously out of touch with the reality on the ground.

My concerns are:

1. Many prospective providers will look at a couple of published single dose studies and wiki and then hang out their shingle. That is not going to end up well as it stands.

What psychiatrists will rely upon iz jenerally beyond your control, meaning do not consider it, and I think they are rather conventional, meaning SSRIs. Some of them might rezort to it under treatment resistant depression rules. 172.219.255.66 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

2. Many prospective patients are going to go to wiki first. The reality is that 95% of people think ketamine was developed and primarily used as a horse tranquilizer, that it has few legitimate uses for people, that it invariably causes hallucinations. The list goes on. People are going to stay sick and other people are going to die because the wiki definition does not put those preconceptions to rest. The opposite risk must also be managed, the unattainable attempt by people to self-medicate with a medication that requires careful monitoring to be safe and effective.

This problem can be partly addressed with placement of a history section. You also need a document that describes dose ranges for anti-depressant and hallucinatory effects. If there's a narrow therapeutic range, then it should be in milligrams of drug per kilogram of body weight.

These are a few examples of the problematic areas:

  • referring to ketamine at the beginning as a "drug" and originally over-emphasizing veterinarian use instead of being primarily a human "medication".
Again, history section. 172.219.255.66 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • putting the second paragraph about abuse with a reference to PCP before a paragraph about it being on the WHO list.
This should not be an issue. You can arbitarily rule comparisons to phencylidiene as irrelevant, and put any paragraph where you want. These are not citation quality issues. 172.219.255.66 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • constantly referring to side effects or abuse effects that only occur at high dosages with poorly screened patients, without referencing those circumstances.
Repetition is a "copyediting for redundancy" issue. Screening patients iz a peculiar issue that you might want to write about in a section of its own. Unreferenced circumstances can rezult in deleted text at your discretion, assuming that you hav read all of the citations. 172.219.255.66 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • the lack of published research to cite to support the weight of practical experience coming out of tens of thousands of ketamine treatments made by commercial clinics. There has to be some mutually agreeable way to reference what is a quiet revolution in depression care for those in the know who have the money so that those in less fortunate circumstances can be well informed.
It iz a movement built upon a drug with a history of informal distribution that intentionally provided an overdose. Dose distinguishes drug from poison. Expect a lot of friction. It needs to be compared to Serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitors. 172.219.255.66 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time and interest in the subject.

Ger Gaines Geraldwgaines (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The two most important guidelines are WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS defines primary sources az inferior to secondary sources, and invites people to delete them, az poorly sourced documents, with a template. The previous version of the template invited people to bolster primary sources with secondary sources. While the latter process is harder, it is not competitive. It also assumes good faith among primary researchers without evidence to the contrary. I favour extending WP:AGF to PubMed, and deleting a guideline's opposition to WP:PSTS. WP:PSTS admits primary sources, suggesting that they should not form the bulk of a document. I disagree on practical grounds: While it is useful to consult an expert or review body to verify that primary sources are reliable, it is also useful to know what those experts are relying upon az evidence. How do experts know what they are talking about? By the time I fill that in, a secondary source may lead to ten or more primary sources, and still be incomplete. Reviews usually do not contain risk ratios, either. 172.219.255.66 (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Off label uses

Do you agree we put all off label uses in Europe AND US, for which there is no definitive proof in the section society and culture? Look at gabapentin were a myriad of uses were cited. For the reader this must be problematic. If some indication becomes a true benefit we can change it to uses. For instance gabapentin and hot flashes: is one good trial sufficient to put it in the uses section? Gabapentin has been used a lot for migrain profylaxis, but there is no evidence for it. Should it be in uses???? I don't think so. --Truebreath (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No. We discuss medical uses best on the best available sources under medical uses. Some of this will include that there is no good evidence for particular uses. There is sometimes no good evidence even for that which is FDA approved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

do you mean not to put off label uses in Europe and US in the section society and culture? do you mean to put profylaxis of migraine in uses, if it is proven that it doesn't help?? could we make a section evidence based uses?and other uses if the evidence is lacking... So is one narrative review in an obscure journal sufficient to put an indication in uses??? and should the title of the uses of gabapentin be "pain" if we have only proof for neuropathic pain ? I think this is an important discussion.

sincerely yours --Truebreath (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to putting a discussion of the evidence of "off label" uses in the society and culture section. Yes mentioning that it does not work to prevent migraines should be in the "medical uses section"
We are a general encyclopedia. Evidence based medicine includes there being insufficient evidence for certain uses.
The section on pain should discuss both neuropathic and other types of pain. The section should be called pain yes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked for gabapentin at the dutch version https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabapentine Indicaties Het wordt voorgeschreven: voor de behandeling van epilepsie wordt gabapentine meestal slechts gebruikt als andere eerste-keusmiddelen onvoldoende werken of te veel bijwerkingen geven; tegen zenuwpijnen (neuropathische pijn en neurogene pijn), postherpetische neuralgie (pijn na gordelroos) en fantoompijn. Gabapentine blijkt ook te werken tegen postoperatieve pijn[3] en in hoge dosis is het ook geschikt voor de behandeling van essentiële tremor.[4] at the Deutsh version https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabapentin Anwendungsgebiete Gabapentin ist zur Monotherapie von einfachen und komplexen partiellen Anfällen mit und ohne sekundäre Generalisierung und zur Zusatztherapie von partiellen Anfällen mit und ohne sekundäre Generalisierung zugelassen. Eine weitere Indikation ist die Behandlung neuropathischer Schmerzen. Neuropathische Schmerzen entstehen z. B. bei einem Teil der Patienten mit einer Gürtelrose nach Abklingen der Hautveränderungen, der Post-Zoster-Neuralgie. Ein anderes häufiges Anwendungsgebiet ist die diabetische Polyneuropathie sowie die Behandlung von Phantomschmerzen. Auch postoperative Schmerzen können durch Gabapentin gemildert werden.[4] Die Substanz kann auch bei refraktärem Husten wirken, wenn die Ursache keine anderen Maßnahmen erfordert.[5] Im Rahmen von "off-label use" (also außerhalb des in der Zulassung genehmigten Gebrauchs) kann es auch bei Spastik bei Multipler Sklerose eingesetzt werden, wenn mit den dafür zugelassenen Substanzen bei angemessener Dosierung und Anwendungsdauer keine ausreichende Linderung erzielt werden konnte oder Unverträglichkeit vorliegt. Ein Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (G-BA) zur Verordnungsfähigkeit in nicht zugelassenem Anwendungsgebiet ist im März 2014 in Kraft getreten.[6]

at the French version https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabapentine

antiépileptique ; dans le traitement des douleurs neuropathiques telles la neuropathie diabétique et la neuropathie post-herpétique comme co-analgésique à des dérivés morphiniques dans le cadre de douleurs cancéreuses neuropathiques3 ; soulagement de la douleur neurotrope associée à la maladie de Lyme (des douleurs chroniques dites neuropathiques surviennent chez 10–15% of patients victimes d'une neuroborreliose due à Borrelia burgdorferi

All those versions speak about neuropathic or neurogenic (polyneuropathy) pain. Not pain in general. I think we should not put uses from reviews from obscure journals, with low grade peer review, in general and certainly not for these drugs, because there is risk of abuse and intoxication.

"there is increasing published evidence of concern about the abuse of pregabalin and gabapentin, and these drugs are now commonly being detected in toxicology in autopsies after drug overdoses. So what is the motivation to misuse these drugs? Users describe the effects as the “ideal psychotropic drug,” “great euphoria,” “disassociation,” and “opiate buzz,” and are achieving these effects by taking large quantities as a single dose.10 Accordingly there is a growing black market, and these drugs are being bought through online pharmacies. The US recognises the problems associated with pregabalin, which has now become a scheduled drug under the Controlled Substance Act"

Sincerely yours --Truebreath (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Gah you are copy and pasting content again. Have removed your edits and will re-write the section in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It is all copied and pasted :-( all of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This edition of baby colic

Since somebody has flagged you for edit warring, I think you should stay out of twinkle for a while, because the edition I am talking about defends a lie with twinkle, since fast and thoughtful are an unusual combination. I found it hard to be civil after the edition in my subject, because the inclusion exaggerates one line in an abstract by clarifying it and amplifying it. That iz not a paraphrasal: That iz a distorted quotation. It is consistent with your bias against extending the list of disease protections that breast milk offers. I could add that consuming human milk reduces a baby's risk for dying of diarrhea by somewhere between fourteen (exclusively formula-fed) and four (supplemented) to one (exclusively breast-fed. In my arrogant opinion if baby colic and diarrhea occur together, then changing the diet of a baby younger than six months, procuring donor milk, iz mandatory. 172.219.255.66 (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please write in English on my talk page or do not write on my talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
English sounds like Ingglish. I asked you to do some research, and I nearly provided you with the answer, unless you insist on finding a review. You are avoiding a lot of questions at this point. 172.219.255.66 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not reading your strange writing style. If you refuse to write in English do not write here.
I will continue to use twinkle as before. Yes I insist on review articles which is inline with WP:MEDRS and community consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Continuing to use twinkle as before should result in revokation of your adminship. Do you agree that diarrhea is a serious complication of colic? 172.219.255.66 (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Provide high quality references. The definition of diarrhea is different in babies than children or adults. Feel free to report me to whomever you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It will be a dark day indeed, if I hav to report you to anyone, because I was hoping to bitch about someone to you if he persisted in incivility. The definition of diarrhea in children or adults does not matter, because we are talking about baby colic. 172.219.255.66 (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Baby colic is not usually associated with diarrhea. If there is severe diarrhea it is likely not colic. Diarrhea is also not a complication of colic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am in pain, because that explicitly avoids my question. I tried to reach you via http://www.canada411.ca/ . I am sad, because this has taken so long to discover, and my expectation are very low. I want to know the flaw in wikipedia security. Either that, or this is just a doctor's way of saying that he feels incompetent as a researcher, and he does not really want to learn the trade: He's happy acting like a robot that deletes anything upsetting to orthodox views on science. I do not know why, and I think this can go faster over a phone. You answered my question with three sentences. All of them are trying to deny that there is a question. Something stinks. Bohgosity BumaskiL 172.219.255.66 (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
We are simply here to reflect the best available literature. There is no one who knows everything. I am happy to look at high quality sources you present. If I have not answered you question it is because I have no idea what it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Jmh649. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014 2

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Myofascial meridians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Please get consensus before reverting again. - Technophant (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up but have already reported you at 3RR here [16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
When is this ever going to stop? This editor is a HUGE time sink. We need a topic ban or full block. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup a full block is likely needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Result 1 month full pp. Nobody Is forcing you to go from page to page calling me a Time Sink and insulting me in other ways. I'm trying to get something done here. what is the purpose of your actions? Just trying to stroke your own ego. - Technophant (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

You added the text "The American Medical Association takes no position specifically on acupuncture" in this edit [17] which is exactly the same as the source [18]. If this occurs again you will lose your ability to edit. You must paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

From WP:COPYVIO: "phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information; sentences such as "John Smith was born on 2 February 1900" lack sufficient creativity to require attribution;" Please don't bite the newcomer and cease your wikihounding NOW! - Technophant (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes the text you added could have been paraphrased. Next time you will be blocked. Paraphrase do not copy and paste. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_70&oldid=630703122"