Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 75

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77→Archive 80

TM

Hi Doc James - I left a message on the transcendental meditation talk page about suggesting a site to be added to the page but you thought it looked like spam. I wanted to explain and ask your help. The Meditation Trust is a non profit charity dedicated to raising awareness about TM and the benefits it can bring, especially to people suffering from illness, stress and mental health problems. I admit my message might have been clumsy but I am not well versed in the protocol with wikipedia and it seems like a minefield trying to get the etiquette right. I wanted to message you to say I am not a spammer but someone who is passionate about the work that the Trust do and that I do genuinely believe that the Trust site has a great deal of well researched information (with a great deal of medical citations) and is a valuable resource about TM. I am messaging you directly hoping that you can advise me on how or what I should do to get some awareness raised for the Trust charity on Wikipedia? As I stress, it is a non profit organisation - the charity number is on their website. I also made a mistake with my username choice which was brought to my attention and I since changed, just in case you wondered why I have changed that. I hope you can point me in the right direction and help and forgive me if my first message on the TM page was a bit naive. Sllsuk (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries. That link is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not here to promote charities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi James - thanks for the response and I appreciate that wikipedia is not here to promote charities or anyone but I wanted to ask is wikipedia not here to suggest the best information resources on a topic? I believe that if you have a look at the Meditation Trust site and the level of information contained you will see it is a valuable resource: http://www.meditationtrust.com/transcendental-meditation-benefits/ The TM.org site is listed and this site has more information than TM.org Sllsuk (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Hello James, you have written and suggest me to follow: A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Resources and inside there are http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ is a useful source, so what's wrong with Colorectal cancer#Tumor markers by using one of useful source. Thank you for your attention.Gsarwa (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Pubmed finds both primary and secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Commentary on overall situation

I want to be sure you understand these comments are not directed at you personally, but on the overall atmosphere and actions of editors and anons on these pages. In many cases its possible to see the reasons why things happen even if its unpleasant to watch it unfold. Starstr (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, things can mean and imply different things in different dialects so I apologize if there is some sort of miscommunication. Starstr (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It is your call on what you wish to do. Commenting on contributors rather than content is frowned upon. I am just giving you a heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Chan, L; Arunachalam, S; Kirsop, B (2009 Aug). "Open access: a giant leap towards bridging health inequities". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 87 (8): 631–5. PMID 19705015. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Atherosclerosis

My amendment to the diet section of the Atherosclerosis page is based on proven clinical interventions where atherosclerosis had been effectively cured in groups of patients, and epidemiology involving people groups who are virtually free of atherosclerosis, backed up by the president-elect of the American College of Cardiology, the former President of the country's top rated cardiac care hospital, and the largest healthcare organization in the United States. I see you've erased all mention of these facts and replaced them with meta-analysis about theoretical effects of other diet strategies taken out of context (there's media reports of a professor who went on an all twinkie diet, and as a result of his weight loss his cholesterol levels marginally improved, but you wouldn't say "a diet rich in twinkies may help prevent heart disease"), including one that I would consider a straw-man against "low fat diets," and even a claim that consuming dairy products high in saturated fat is an effective way to prevent cardiovascular disease. I can understand Wikipedia's favoring of meta-analysis rather than primary sources in some cases, but can you not agree that the effectiveness of finding truth in a meta-analysis can be hindered by the bias of the authors and by people who post a meta-analysis because its conclusion text sounds positive without actually reading and understanding the analysis or the individual studies involved in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.90.146 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We use secondary sources such as meta analysis for a number of reasons. We do not use primary sources to refute secondary sources. If you can find a high quality secondary source that supports the content you wish to add we can than discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
What do you consider a high-quality secondary source, considering the sources you used to replace the words of the world's top cardiologists? I would argue that simply being a meta-analysis says nothing of its quality, and often times means lower quality because it can imply a cherry-picking of data (especially when industry grants have funded it), and as I said, people tend to look very superficially at the text in the abstract rather than taking the time to read the meta-analysis and the studies within it to assess whether or not the data is relevant and useful, leading to misinterpretations that become harmful suggestions. I would consider something like this a far more valid source of information: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1520-037X.2001.00538.x/pdf
An accomplished expert who has, himself, consistently cured heart disease in patients and served on many health advisory boards, referencing populations of people who have extremely low rates of the disease and what they typically eat, other trials of low-fat, plant-based diets that achieved similar results in reversing heart disease, as well as the failure of other diets to produce adequate results (such as the mediterranean diet's ability to slow the progression of atherosclerosis, but not prevent or cure it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.90.146 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
What would we want as a reference? That would be a position statement from a national or internationally recognized medical organizations. That would be a recent review article from the last 5 years. Or that would be a recent major medical textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies back at you

And I carelessly did not include an edit summary, since it was "obvious" to me (as the editor-of-the-moment) why I removed the text— but without an edit summary, you couldn't have known this. So let the apology be mine. KDS4444Talk 12:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

adiministrators noticeboard

dear sir, you have moved two of my comments from ebola west Africa talk page, sir this is your only warning do it again and I will take to the noticeboard as vandalism. have a nice day--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzie10aaaa (talk • contribs) 12:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all NO COMMENTS were deleted. You can see the dif here [1]. The issue we are facing is new users rather than joining the previous discussion on the topic feel they should simply start new sections about it over and over again. Would recommend per talk page etiquette that you join the already ongoing discussions rather than start new ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Shiftwork: Modafinil

You appear to have removed a citation of an Air Force Research Laboratory technical report. I do not understand why you think it is inadequate. The study was conducted by scientists with well over 100 years of combined experience in this kind of research, and the report is in the public domain, available free from the U.S. Defense Technical Information Service, as noted. Not citing useful work like this is a disservice to the reader. Millergonomics (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS which states that we use secondary sources rather than primary sources. Also typically use sources from the last 5 years. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Modafinil

Citing Wikipedia, "These secondary sources ... also have disadvantages: The authors are writing about what other people said happened and cannot use their own experience to correct any errors or omissions. The authors may be unable to see clearly through their own cultural lens, and the result may be that they unconsciously emphasize things important to their cultures and times, while overlooking things important to the actual actors... The encyclopedia article ... also has disadvantages: in relying on the secondary source, the encyclopedia article will repeat, and may accidentally amplify, any distortions or errors in that source. It may also add its own interpretation."

These are pretty overwhelming disadvantages. Perhaps Wikipedia editorial policy should take advantage of input from primary sources and simply mark it as such. Perhaps the reader is actually able to discriminate between the advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary sources. I appreciate the clarification. I'll certainly keep in mind these potential distortions as I read Wikipedia articles. Millergonomics (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not really the perspective when it comes to medicine where lots of high quality secondary sources exist. It is not the readers we do this for but the editors.
We are trying to provide an overview. Secondary sources make this much much easier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

ORCID

Hi,

I just fixed the instance of {{Authority control}}, with your ORCID identifier, on your user page, I trust that's OK.

Yes thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

removal of ===Neuroleptics=== from Causes of schizophrenia

I object to your removal of ===Neuroleptics=== from Causes of schizophrenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_schizophrenia

A study done by Harding(1987) reported that twenty years later 25% to 50% of the (seriously mentally ill) patients were completely off their medications http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/03/the-vermont-longitudinal-study-correction-of-seven-myths/

John Nash the famous person who recovered from schizophrenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr. does not use neuroleptics.

Neuroleptics have been proven to shrink the brain, this brain damage must contribute to the thoughts/behaviour of schizophrenia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21300943 http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=211017 http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110207/full/news.2011.75.html

The human brain becomes oversensitive to dopamine after long term exposure to psychiatric medicine(Neuroleptics).

“Neuroleptic-induced supersensitivity psychosis” written by Chouinard G, Jones BD, Annable L. : Am J Psychiatry. 1978 Nov;135(11):1409-10

Scanned photocopy you can read http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Schizophrenia_files/Chouinard%281%29.pdf

Continual neuroleptic use does contribute to schizophrenia being a chronic condition.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

How is any of that about the CAUSE of schizophrenia? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
If I gave a person neuroleptics, the drug would cause schizophrenic symptoms, which came first (schizophrenia or the drug)? "In 1993 Richard Bentall went a bit mad" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10565099&pnum=0 "You Must Believe You Are Mentally Ill" http://www.successfulschizophrenia.org/articles/dblbinds.html--Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
When you are ready to use sources per WP:MEDRS we can discuss. The popular press is not worth reading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

ADHD

I was trying to make an edit on this page but have not been able to save it. Is there any special problem I am not aware of?--Artzi (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

PFAPA

Thank you very much - great learning example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amosabo (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Great having you join us. Editing is really easy :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Doc, I'm a volunteer over at Third Opinion and there's a request there about HAMLET (protein complex). When I took a look at the article, that particular dispute aside, it appears to me at least on first glance to be supported entirely or almost entirely by primary studies in violation of MEDRS and, indeed, appears to attempt to summarize or synthesize those studies. I was tempted to send it to AfD but I get very quickly out of my depth when I get over into MEDRS issues and it may well be that I'm reading more (or less) into the article titles than they deserve. Knowing that you're a MEDRS guru, I was hoping that you might find a moment to take a look. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. A little tangential to clinical medicine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
A little promotional. Tamped it down a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Your scalpel is infinitely better than my hatchet. Many thanks and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Machine read audio files

Hey Ex. Am actually interested in seeing if we can do this widely. We first need to get consensus for it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC) I have done this on the schizophrenia file. Just the exact copy of the current text. See if you like it.Ex-nimh-researcher (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Have I misunderstood the Wikipedia philosophy of edit, then if there is disagreement reach consensus. It is Cleary started in the intro flowchart. It seems a bit rude that you just remove all that I did, which was just a copy of the text. What can be wrong with that? Wikipedia has a lot of audio files that are not copies of the text! I will respectfully revert back so others can have a possibility of seeing how it works. It is just an aid for people who are e.g. dyslexic and should be very much in the spirit of Wikipedia. Ex-nimh-researcher (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
We need to come to consensus with respect to where this will go first.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Csn you prescribe me viagra

And ship the rx to ohio usa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.250.58 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
This thread made me laugh. =D Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Second time they posted this :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving ADHD for FA

Hey Jmh, I plan to start working on the ADHD article sometime within the next month or two (after I'm done with amphetamine) with the aim to eventually FA nominate it. I'm just about finished with amphetamine's FA; I expect it'll pass my next nomination (I've asked the FAC coordinators to archive the current one).
In any event, the ADHD peer review that I made a while back didn't really generate any useful responses, so I figured I'd ask you for your opinion. What section(s) do you think are most in need of expansion or updates from newer medical citations? Also, are there any sections which you think might be too technical for a layperson? I expect to put a lot of time into the article, so any guidance/feedback will be appreciated. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Have had a recent interesting discussion with another prof at UBC regarding Wikipedia articles. He raised the concern that as our articles get longer (which we might consider to be better) they may actually become less useful to the majority of people who use us as a general overview.
It really emphasized that we should strive to keep our articles at the no more than 100,000 bytes mark and use sub articles more aggressively. Not a specific comment about how ADHD should be improved more of a reminder that people use Wikipedia to find that proverbial needle in a haystack and we should not create more haystacks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't be having articles of 100kb of prose...which ones are? I just looked at schizophrenia and it's coming at 33 kb - and hasa host of subarticles. The lead starts to take more importance, particularly for the mobile version of wp in this case. ADHD will be a massive headache as there is controversy over what it actually is and whether it is real. The extreme of one end is that it is merely sustained flight/flight response from child trauma and therapies are nonspecific to other extreme of it being held as biologically valid. A fun minefield :P Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
ADHD is current at 100kb and schizophrenia is at 90kb of total text. Both of them are a good size right now IMO. This was just something to keep in mind.
With respect to it being controversial. Yes, yes it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I really don't like long wikipedia articles either, unless an article is very well organized and easily navigable (i.e., the TOC is useful), compartmentalized by subtopic, and has sections that are on-topic. I tried to write/organize amphetamine like that. The article is fairly long (text only size:38 kB & 5430 words) - longer than ADHD (text only size: 29 kB & 4502 words) - but every topic is fully/thoroughly covered within the (sub-)section on the heading topic and nowhere else. It wasn't easy to write/organize the article like that because, while the article needed to be comprehensive for featured status, it initially was very redundant and had an enormous/excessive amount of content on its history and sociocultural aspects (which I moved here). So in general, I agree about the length of articles creating an accessibility problem.

I'm not inclined to make the ADHD article any longer than it is. What I'll probably do is copyedit sections to condense the text before adding material, assuming there is any content to update. For example, I think ADHD#Signs and symptoms would be easier to read, look more organized, and use less space if that content were placed in a page-spanning wikitable with the columns delineating the symptoms for each subtype. I think ADHD#Causes may need to be pruned/updated as well (I have several current refs on hand which indicate a prominent genetic component), though I can't say for sure until I've thoroughly searched for relevant literature on the subsection topics. I also might reorganize and/or retitle some of the sub-articles if I think some of the text in ADHD should be moved to a related sub-article and replaced with a condensed summary as well.

Either of you have any thoughts on this or other suggestions? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Probably worth taking this discussion to the article talk page, which is what I will do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

congrads

On the publication of Dengue Fever. Back from a little wikibreak and thought I'd drop you a line before restarting.

Best. Ian Furst (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Good to see you back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Co-operation

Dear Dr. Heilman, would You mind if I translate Your medical articles into Belarusian language for Normative Belarusian Wikipedia?

With the best wishes, Ігар Барысавіч Цярэшчанка (medical student from Belarus). --Belarus2578 (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Belarus2578 I would love if you started translating medical articles into the Belarusian language. We have listed of articles that are ready for translation here [2] and [3]. We are currently working on moving our tracking tables to google docs to make it easier. Also happy to put you in touch with Translators Without Borders if you wish to work with them aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of adverse effects for chlorpromazine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [Chlorpromazine] includes the following list of adverse effects (serious adverse effects appear in '

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Edit War

Your reversal of edits without reading the talk page and discussing a section already under discussion is leading to an Edit War. I suggest you engage in ongoing discussions before editing.AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you are at 4 reverts and would recommend that you undo your last one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I have only had 2 reverts in the last 24 hours, the others were edits, not reverting to the same wording. But I think its time to slow it down a little. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Someone whose opinion I respect recently chided me for my negative comments on meta analysis and occassional swipes at Cochrane, stating that I was undermining a hard won consensus on reliable sources and not offering any positive alternative.

Since many of these comments have been made in conversations with you, I thought I would ask your opinion. I would not want to be a negative factor here. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your contributions are generally positive and appreciated your feedback User:Formerly 98. Is their an actually RfC going on? I personally hope to see you continuing to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
No, sorry for the poor nomenclature. It was a offline discussion with someone who was offering a friendly suggestion that I had overstepped outside the range of what was constructive. He was concerned that I was being a little too free about rehashing issues on which consensus has been ongoing for a while.
If I have not done so previously, I'd like to apologize for my behavior a few months back. I behaved childishly. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I sometimes get a little set in my ways and take a bit of convincing to come around. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

Wikipedia articles and journals

I was browsing the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and I noticed this thread here about: 'First Wikipedia Article has been Formally Peer Reviewed and Published'. It reminded me of the publications in PLOS back in 2012. Details are at the PLOS blog: Bridging the Journal-Wikipedia gap. Were you aware of that previous instance? It seems to have been the other way round, with the article reviewed and then published simultaneously in the journal and on Wikipedia. I have no idea how successful that PLOS workflow was. I had a memory that there was an earlier instance as well, but may be misremembering. If anyone does a blog on this, it would be good to try and tie all these examples together somehow, as there have been more journal-Wikipedia interactions than maybe people realise. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes this article was written on Wikipedia and than published. The other was written off Wikipedia, published and than a summary was added to Wikipedia. So a different work flow. Would be great if someone wrote a blog tying the two together.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Epilepsy

I am most saddened to see you and Colin locking horns at epilepsy. I have tried to defibrillate the debate on Talk:Epilepsy and was hoping for your response. JFW | T@lk 22:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree it is unfortunate. I have alway spoken highly of Colin's work. Unfortunately I do not feel he is helping the current discussion. And have come to realize that we may have a fairly different idea around how Wikipedia does and should work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you posted on QuackGurus talk page, would you please take a few minutes and look at the e-cigarette talk page and chime in. I am pretty sure Quack Guru is repeatedly violating the copyright policy even though I have pointed out the pages, even going so far as to quote from the pages. After hours, he reverted one back to how it almost was at the start. AlbinoFerret (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks for dropping by, but the problem wasnt with just one line, but nearly every addition he has made in the last few weeks. Any suggestions on how to get him to change? AlbinoFerret (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes some borderline cases. Have left them a note on their talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

re. Female Genital Mutilation tag

Why do you feel the need to remove this tag?

{{cleanup|section|reason= See Talk#Prevalence stats way off. <disputed summary> |date=October 2014}}

--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 04:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not see sufficient justification or consensus to remove the map. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit at acupuncture

Hi Doc, just letting you know I'm reverting your earlier edit to a consensus version with more precise wording (see (discussion at the time). The text is summarizing a 2009 Ernst review-of-reviews for pain, which found that although most reviews from 2000-2009 for pain were in fact positive, there were enough caveats and contradictions to doubt their conclusions. Ernst then pointed to more recent RCT's that had found negative results for efficacy (i.e. real no better than sham), and predicted (correctly) that reviews in the future would probably show more negative results. Hence the need for more granular wording to accurately summarize the source. I can email it to you if you like.... and am proposing that we cite something more recent than a 2009 review for efficacy, especially in lede. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 07:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Appears you have been reverted [4]. The lead should be a summary. Extra details can be provided in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Yes, I was reverted, and they got it wrong. My edit indeed restored consensus wording and fixed an error -- and please, FWIW, don't ignore my comments because I'm supposedly a woo pusher; I'm a degreed scientist and know what I'm saying. The reason for the precise wording is that the review-of-reviews did not find real acu to be no better than sham acu -- this is a case where the RCT's mentioned in the review contradict (and are predicted to supersede) the dataset. Ernst predicted, based on RCT's more recent than the dataset, that in the future reviews would so show (i.e. that real acu is no better than sham). Again, we should use a more recent source (although QuackGuru has been intent on this one), but till then, let's get this one right.
Below was edit-conflicted with your above comment:
QuackGuru reverted my edit despite originally supporting Vzaak's consensus wording discussed at talk. (Note that a lot of editors were also involved at the long thread at WT:MED -- note Vzaak's comment ending that thread) -- so WP:SILENCE applies for all those who didn't affirmatively comment on Vzaak's bold edit, but could have objected or reverted. It's a true, broad consensus -- and correct on substance.)
So I restored the consensus version once again, but now User:Dominus Vobisdu has reverted me, ignoring talk and simply repeating QG's inaccurate ES "violation of consensus". I've asked DV why but seriously doubt their revert was based on substance. More likely it's an example of tendentiousness in the name of woo-fighting. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 10:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC) edited10:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 10:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay will look Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Abstract states "Unanimously positive conclusions from more than one high-quality systematic review existed only for neck pain....In conclusion, numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain.... Numerous reviews have produced little convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain."[5]

We summarize this as "A systematic review of systematic reviews found real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture and concluded that there is little evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment for reducing pain" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that sounds kind of plausible but isn't, and one needs the full review to understand why.
  • The review says "real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture" about one specific source, his ref. 128, an RCT by Suarez-Almazor et. al. (2010) ....
  • ... with which he's contrasting the dataset of efficacy reviews from 2000-2009, about which he says "the majority of the 57 recent reviews were positive... [y]et there are many contradictions and doubts."
  • Then he predicts "Adequately controlling for nonspecific effects in future is likely to demonstrate that acupuncture has no or few specific effects on pain." (Which is the same as saying that real acu likely will be found to be little or no better than sham.)
Just let me know if you want the PDF; I'll be online for another hour or so and then in about 12 hours from now. Thanks again for looking at this. We can get the letter and spirit right without doing violence to either. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 11:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
And here's the latest from the editor who earlier reverted. Impressive. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

Hello. I saw - http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/562/562 - Congratulations. I made some edits here - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=HIV%2FAIDS&diff=629550863&oldid=628512274 - I was surprised that treatment guidelines were from 2011! Please help fix the dates in my references. Thanks. Part (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted a couple of things. Yes last did a major update back in 2014. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Atherosclerosis

"Secondary not primary sources please."

I'm not sure what you're asking for or why you undid my edit to the atherosclerosis page. I provided direct references to two landmark studies that I think would be considered very important to the article.

secondary source versus primary source Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thermal burn

You are invited to expand/improve article at User:PlanetStar/Thermal burn before putting this in the main space. PlanetStar 23:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Now it looks that the article is done enough after doing little more work on Friday night, so I plan on moving to main space on Saturday. ARE YOU READY?????? PlanetStar 07:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

My bad

Thank you for noticing my strange edit to Ovarian cancer. I accidentally made the edit in an old version of the article, reverting it to that time. I've now made the actual edit I had meant to. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Assumed as much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Poliomyelitis - dirty theory

Wed., Hi, Doc James. I was in a hurry on that poliomyelitis article (still am), but wanted to call into question the "improved sanitation theory." Sabin's own article surely qualifies as authoritative. Fowl Footed (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Doc James.

Fn [7] used to go to a funny but non-authoritative (albeit .edu) cartoon about a 12-Steps-type meeting of Polio, Smallpox, Leprosy, Influenza, etc., where Polio has the floor and says improved sanitation gave him new hope (since it helped create the massive polio epidemics). Now, footnote 7 has been changed to go to the following site, which agrees with polio dissemination by poor hygiene, which is what I said, and which is what Sabin maintained in the face of “dogma.” I believe my edit pointing out that “the ‘improved sanitation theory’ is not at all proven” should have been allowed to stand. I didn’t take the unproven theory down. I just added the opposing view from people who’ve earned the right to speak.

The Immunological Basis for Immunization Series - Module 6: Poliomyelitis http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1993/WHO_EPI_GEN_93.16_mod6.pdf?ua=1

Humans are the sole reservoir for poliovirus. Wild polioviruses are spread directly or indirectly from person to person. Virus dissemination is facilitated by poor sanitation. In all countries, children under two years of age create a microenvironment of less than optimal hygiene within the family and within daycare settings, readily facilitating fecal-oral and oral-oral (mouth-fingers-mouth) transmission. Feces can serve as a source of contamination of water, milk,or food, and houseflies can passively transfer poliovirus from feces to food (Gear 1952).

Fowl Footed (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey User:Fowl Footed, the issue I had was not the content changes itself but the source used. This link [6] was published by generic in 2010. We need a better reference that is all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ovarian (Breast and Colorectal) Cancer Definition

Hi Doc James,

First of all, congratulations on your great contributions to Wikipedia!

Considering your reply, I have two comments:

1. Starting a definition with "is when" is said to be avoided by different editors(See "Additional Tips for Writing Definitions" at https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/622/01/), so my intention was just to polish the style of your definitions of ovarian cancer, breast cancer and colorectal cancer.

2. Regarding the references you include in the definitions, I think that the proper link should be the NCI webpage for each cancer type, instead of a specific NCI webpage. For example, the "Colon Cancer Treatment" webpage which you cite in the definition of colorectal cancer is not the primary source of the definition, which appears somewhere else on the NCI website. For this reason, I'd rather cite "Colon and Rectal Cancer" (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/colon-and-rectal), which does include a definition of this type of cancer.

Best,

Vichovi

We need to clearly separate metastasis from primary tumors. If a met occurs in the colon it is not colon cancer. Thus "is when" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Stating "Colon cancer is a malignant tumor in the colon" does not exclude mets which are spread. I have adjusted to take your advice into account :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Review on Ovarian Cancer

You might be interested on this review:

Jayson et al. (2014) "Ovarian Cancer": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24767708

Vichovi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vichovi (talk • contribs) 15:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent source. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

Level of Detail for Pathophysiology

Hi James, I have a quick question for you. I recently added a significant amount of material to the Ebola virus disease pathophysiology section and I considered adding additional detail, but I would like to ask your opinion prior to doing so. I do not want to cross the line of excessive detail (if such a line exists). I have been wondering whether I should add information that discusses the mechanism of how the Ebolavirus VP24 protein interferes with STAT1's entry into the nucleus and therefore prevents the expression of antiviral proteins. Basically, the paper says VP24 binds to importin alpha 5 (and similar proteins) and prevents the recognition of phosphorylated STAT1's nuclear localization signal thereby preventing its entry into the nucleus. At this point, the section basically just says it prevents entry into the nucleus, but you can see for yourself how the updated section looks. Let me know if you think clarifying exactly how VP24 prevents nuclear entry is necessary or if the current level of detail is sufficient. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I am in the "keep main article simple" camp. If you are keen to write more in depth material, which is great, we could have a Pathophysiology of Ebola article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That might be a good idea for the future when (hopefully) this outbreak ceases. For now, I think we can better serve the Wikipedia community by continuing to improve the already existing EVD article since it's getting a huge amount of attention right now and is constantly being changed or updated. I had a feeling you would recommend remaining on the simpler side, but I wanted to confirm that with you. I agree since it's imperative that readers really understand this article. I tried to make the content I added as jargon-free as possible, but I will look over it again later and see if I find any other areas that can be simplified. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It is good editing with you :-) Agree we need to get this article to a high quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The feeling is mutual my friend. And by no means am I saying that we shouldn't make the pathophys article. I do think that's a good idea for a future article. Separate question-given what these papers have been saying about interferon's ability to inhibit EBOV pathogenesis (but EBOV is quite adept at interfering with host interferon responses), do you know of any clinical experience in which pegylated interferon (or a similar medication) was used as a form of treatment for EBOV? I'm wondering from a theoretical perspective if it would make sense as an antiviral treatment to attempt for the disease. I certainly realize it is an unpleasant treatment given all of its influenza-like side effects (hence the move away from interferon-based regimens for Hepatitis C treatment with the advent of newer agents like Sofosbuvir), but I'm wondering if this medication or one like it has ever been used in EBOV treatment and, if so, if there is documentation of the results. I'm not looking for medical advice, but I'm just wondering if you know of anything like that in the literature or from your personal/professional experience. If so, please let me know. I would be interested to hear your opinion on whether it sounds like a potentially rational approach as a disease-modifying measure (obviously in addition to the necessary supportive measures). I look forward to your feedback! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
After a little more thought, I realize that artificial administration of interferon alpha would only address one component (EBOV's ability to interfere with interferon synthesis) and would not address VP24's ability to interfere with cellular responses to interferon. Even with artificial administration of interferon, the interferon would bind to the receptors on cells but the VP24 would again interfere with the response though whether high doses could overwhelm this...I don't know. Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
We discuss some antivirals here Ebola_virus_disease#Research. Haven't thought about it much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen that and much of it looks promising. I was just thinking about this because this is a medication that already has well-characterized side effects and is reasonably well understood with respect to its mechanism of action. It wouldn't need to undergo trials, etc. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you know how these images or diagrams that are commonly found in medical articles are made? I feel another image for the pathophysiology section might be helpful for readers with the interferon mechanisms. Just a thought... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No not sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Female_genital_mutilation. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  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.
You reverted all my recent edits, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Female_genital_mutilation&diff=629950997&oldid=629876454 and left no comments whatsoever on the talk page. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes! {{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 08:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page. I removed the copyright infringement you added to an article.[7] Please do not do this again. Additionally I left a note here [8] Sorry I forgot to tag your talk page with a warning template. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no copyright infringement. It is PD because facts are not copyrightable, and the presentation does not meet the Threshold of originality (see here and Feist_v._Rural and Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_law) Yes, I see you left a note here [9]. So at least you visited the article talk page. If you still think there is, EXPLAIN WHY you think ToO or Feist don't apply. Feel free to ask User:Moonriddengirl or open a DR on the image. I guess you're one of the admins who thinks the rules doesn't apply to them. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 15:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure have asked here [10]. If she says PD I am happy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Better than nothing. Why do you refuse to EXPLAIN WHY you think ToO or Feist don't apply? And why can't you use a sig that matches your username?--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Do these apply to content produced in other countries or just the USA? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

All contributions to tendinosis page deleted

Ahh.

Everything was deleted =(.

Pretty much all the information was from abstracts and free, fulltext papers, and all the information references academic papers.

Is any of the information wrong, or is it just because I didn’t paraphrase?

I chose papers that are high on Google scholar, and are relatively recent, so they should be credible.

I believe that the information is good.

I just didn’t want to interpret it because I didn’t want to make a mistake in trying to explain it.

How should I go about this?

Are there specific sections that I should change, or should I attempt to paraphrase everything in my version, and attempt to submit the changes again.

Thanks.

Bboyjkang2 (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I’ll start with the “research” section first.
I paraphrased (at least I think I did) the entries of the “Autologous tenocyte injection“ and “Nonbulbar dermal sheath cell“ sections.
I don’t know what to change with the “Allogenic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells“ section because that section was already from my own words, but it was still deleted.
Can I submit the proposed changes somewhere for a re-check?
Thanks.
Bboyjkang2 (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes these were unfortunately copyright issues. You must put what you read in your own words. Best to never use the copy and past buttons. Also please use secondary sources such as review articles rather than primary research. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ‎

I will undo your deletion of my recent footnote on Charcot's naming of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis .

Who the Hell are you to delete that information? I've been providing references for the historical aspects of science and technology for years. Time and again I've found that secondary sources are riddled with errors, which is why I always refer to primary sources, which are the only reliable ones. Furthermore, more than once, people writing technical articles on a subject have wanted to know the history of the subject; they've wanted to know where some finding or name originally appeared, which is why so many Wikipedia articles include history sections. I provided the primary source in which ALS is named.

May I suggest that you do something useful with your life -- such as watch dust settle or paint dry? Cwkmail (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to cite old primary sources. We are not here to do primary research. See WP:NOR and WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please let me know which reasons under WP:ELNO were the reasons you removed the CASAA link on the E-cigarette article? Thanks AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be an advocacy site from the USA. It is not about e-cigs but smoking generally. It does not add anything unique. It contains a petition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reasons. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I wont replace it because of the other reasons you mentioned. It may link to other petitions but there is no petition on the site. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Knock yourself out

Your revert pointlessly stigmatizes HIV+ people with the appellation "HIV/AIDS". It is an unduly circumstantial piece of useless verbiage which harms patients. If you are a medical professional you should be ashamed of yourself for stigmatizing and harming millions of HIV+ people. WP is an encyclopedia not a dictionary and by opening the article with an entirely uneccessary application of the term to the broadest possible category you are mere stating the obvious from a pointlessly destruction POV which sheds no light on the topic. The talk page of the article is seeking a means to do the exact opposite. Shameful. Wikidgood (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Complain to UNAID. This is the terminology they use. Get them to change and so will we. Agree we need to clarify the term AIDS in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of fact I did so. This is a spectrum disorder an that needed clarification. I got that idea from someone on the talk page and that is part of what is wrong with the way the article is structured. What, as a professional health care specialist you don't seem to be aware of is that the nomenclature used by UNAID and NIH conference attendees is all well and good but when that is injected into the mass vernacular it can have devastating effects. It is not just nomenclature it is policy that seems all fine and good when talking amongst Ph D'd professionals. As just one example, the brilliant idea of distributing condoms in the jail of a certain Caribean nation sounded like a good idea but resulted in riots that left many people dead. So you can cite UNAIDS and maybe with enough WikiLawyering maintain the misleading character of the article but someone on the streets of Nigeria or Botswana is going to be confused by your high falutin UNAID WP:RS justified written word and how many people will be stigmatized, alienated and exiled because of your fetish for imposing techspeak and jargon onto lay readers?Wikidgood (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay so now we wait for them to change their publications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That is not how Wikipedia works. UNAID usage does not establish a universal standard, it depends upon the universe of reliable sources and they must be cited. But you are missing the point entirely. Just because clinical practicioners use a certain term in print, and nobody actually walks around saing "HIVAIDS" they usually distinguish HIV+ from "full blown AIDS", in the vernacular, does not mean that particular term of art is the best title for a WP article. Nor does it mean that a confusing discussion of the term is good WP writing. But actually the problem was resolved by the edit which inserted the one word needed to clarify, and that word was suggested by your above argument. You introduced the term "spectrum" and that is the point which lay readers might not have gotten but for the use of the term in the article. So thank you. This discussion was productive after all. Because it is important that lay readers get it that we are talking about a spectrum. But I find it disturbing that after my impassioned plea for the safety of HIV + people you dismissed the concern with really a somewhat snarkyremark about waiting around for UN bureacrats. Shameful really. Are you in this to do good or just to win arguments. Well, maybe that is not a nice fair question so I will retract it. But it seems very unfriendly of you to be more concerned with extending world governement jargon despite its deleterious effect upon humans. I will check the references and if there is a justification for the rhetorical usage you like so much then I suppose it is a bit of a lost cause. But UNAID lingo does not meaqn for instance that the AIDS search on WP has to divert to HIVAIDS. THere could well be separate articles on HIV Infection and one on AIDS as well as HIVAIDS the latter dealing from a broader perspective. Does anyone care?Wikidgood (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you the article needed to be clearer in the first paragraph. We have adjusted it and I hope that it is better now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Immuno case studies

Hi James! Hope you're well. I'm procrastinating on studying for my immunology exam and therefore writing articles about weird immune system diseases. Would it be acceptable MEDRS to cite the review-y portion of a case study in a book of case studies? (for reference, it's Geha and Notarangelo's Case Studies in Immunology, pretty standard text as far as I can tell.) Thanks! Keilana|Parlez ici 02:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think so. Also it is a standard textbook and not a stand alone primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, makes sense. Thanks much! Keilana|Parlez ici 02:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Citations for medical articles

From next time, may I simply ask you here about the citations, whether they should be used on a specific article or not? It can be frequent, because I have to write a lot on different medical subjects. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure happy to provide my opinion Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Help

Hi James. Yes I'd be glad to help. But I haven't been editing the article so I'm not that aware of the approach the authors have taken. Let's begin with this: I'll look into the article and the text you just pasted in the Talk page and see how can we merge it so all information is kept.

Also, I'll try to bring back whatever I find on the ES article to be translated to other Wikis.

Later, --Facu89 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Transmission

Seems the WHO and CDC have conflicting statements about Transmission. The article states: .."blood or body fluids of a person after symptoms have developed." Yet, CDC says: "The CDC confirmed that the second healthcare worker who tested positive for Ebola Oct. 14 had traveled by air Oct. 10 and again Oct. 13, the day before she reported symptoms...Passengers who may have traveled on [that flight a day before the development of symptoms] should contact CDC..." Going back to the second paragraph of the CDC passenger notification: "Individuals who are determined to be at any potential risk..." [1] (This conflict, seems to go beyond first/followed-by symptoms to severity of headaches to government quarantine (military) of a military member's family (mandatory truancy for a family's student)[2]--Nodove (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So the question is when does one turn from having no symptoms to having minor symptoms to having full symptoms? The CDC is being very cautious.
Additionally they do not say that the disease is transmissible before symptoms develop in the above. And in many places they say it is not transmittable before symptoms develop. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I suppose my question is: What better explanation of symptoms does a public transportation crew have to deny a passenger public transportation? I haven't discovered anything from WHO or CDC that answers that. (A mild fever, headache, or sore throat--mentioned in the wiki article--doesn't seem to justify one way or the other whether a passenger has the flu or instead has EVD). Yesterday, I did pose a similar question to WHO (for the first time in my life), with no repsonse yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodove (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Probably best not to travel if you have a fever. From what I understand they can deny anyone transport if they have a communicable disease. This includes the common cold technically. They usually do not do this but may start now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The symptoms conundrum hasn't been clarified to me.--Nodove (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ . paragraph 2, 3 & 4: CDC. Thursday, October 16, 2014 http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/s1016-cdc-expands-passanger-notification.html. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
  2. ^ . Eagle Mountain Independent School District (EMISD) http://www.emsisd.com/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&ModuleInstanceID=15289&ViewID=7b97f7ed-8e5e-4120-848f-a8b4987d588f&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=40891&PageID=1. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
great page Vijavica (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

A special mirror?

Hi James, Please have a look at these guys in Manhattan. They seem to mirror WP without attribution (even claiming their own copyright), but they also offer a lot of image content that (if legit) might be useful. There might be room to bargain if they were approached the right way. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes they have taken Wikipedia without attribution. If they are this ignorant of copyright likely all the rest of the content is borrowed from others Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

They do not range high on similarweb [11]. They look like a well put together aggregator. Email them and see what they say... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I advised them, we'll see what happens. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

SUL request

I made a request to change my user name to Doc James from jmh649 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Advanced cardiac life support

Huh I would've thought to go in chronological order like most things seem to be done but I can see why putting the most recent guidelines first would make sense as well Cannolis (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

At WikiProject Med we typically put older stuff lower. Thus why we have history sections at the end. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

I'm very happy to see you are keeping a close eye on this. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes is good to have a few of us keeping an eye on it. Travel Doc James (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your renaming

Hi, your response is needed regarding your request for username change, please check m:Steward requests/Username changes. — Yerpo Eh? 15:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Appears I am unable to log into until move is finished. Travel Doc James (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Others clarified that to me later, so I triggered the rename before you responded; hope it didn't cause you any difficulties. It's done now, enjoy your new username :) — Yerpo Eh? 05:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I like your renaming; it matches your signature, and now I don't have to type "Jmh649 (Doc James)" (not that I had to type that before, LOL, but you know that I did just so that it was clear to everyone that Jmh649 and Doc James are one and the same). Flyer22 (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes agree. I did not realize that this was possible before. It will reduce confusion across the 100 or so languages of Wikipedia I edit. We really need global notifications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Currently, when one clicks on the contributions link in your signature, it's blank; but I see that's because your signature is currently using the old username (Jmh649). So your contributions got moved to the new name. Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Same with clicking on the "email" link in your signature. Flyer22 (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks will fix :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Checking Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're tweaking the signature, please consider doing something with the message, for example:
The following is a fake signature to show the idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Like this Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: unified login is one of the steps in the process of implementing global notifications and other nifty features. By the way, you might want to ask a bot operator to mass-fix your old signatures on talk pages so all the links will work. — Yerpo Eh? 11:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have redirect my old user name to this new one. Have also registered the old account and sent the email to me aswell. Would be happy to have a bot fix it too though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Saint James

Congratulations on your rechristening. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebolavirus or Ebola virus?

I'm reading through the Ebola virus disease page again and I noticed that the article switches back and forth between ebolavirus and ebola virus. Are they interchangeable or is one preferred over the other? I know it's a minor point, but I think we should try to be consistent if possible. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, is there a reason we aren't mentioning passive immunization under the treatment section using antibodies in the sera of EVD survivors? Or is it okay to add that in? New 2014 article mentions it briefly. I think it would be a good thing to add (it's kind of a sparse section as it is (understandably)). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The same review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4197285/ also comments on the use of interferon in EVD and apparently the approach has been tried before without success. Unfortunate =( TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Passive immunization is discussed some under blood products in the research section.
We should be using ebolavirus technically. Ebola virus just refers to one of the 5. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now (about the passive immunization). I'll look through later and see if anything needs to be changed regarding the ebolavirus vs ebola virus issue. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I am happy with either I guess. People use the word "Ebola virus" to mean all five. But from what I understand technically this is incorrect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Technically correct is a great kind of correct. =) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Copy and paste

Re that book, Chapter 31 is said to be by G. Lloyd, who would seem to be Graham Lloyd, one of the authors of doi:10.1093/cid/cir132. If so it's extremely unlikely that he copied WP. Consider that he was an author of OCLC 729401555 in 1983, PMID 4045253 in 1985, and OCLC 355985466 in 1995. Also, he would likely be preoccupied with the currently active outbreak, so I wouldn't expect prompt feedback on non-urgent matters. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, it was added in this edit by Rhys in Nov 2006, citing PMID 16002313 from the previous year. I'd want to check that article first before going after Lloyd.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks double checked. It was not from their. That paper did not carry this wording. Also the text they copied was added by more than one editor at different point in time. Second editor [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The version they appear to have copied from is here [13] from May 30th at 23:25. Punctuation was just changed which is in the textbook. This version is much closer to the textbook than the original text from 2006.
  • The 2006 [14]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Finding more copied and pasted section:

We stated "March 12, 2009, an unidentified 45-year-old female scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans. Since the peak period for an outbreak during the 21-day Ebola incubation period has passed as of April 2, 2009, she has been declared healthy and safe. It remains unclear whether or not she was ever actually infected with the virus"
They stated "in 12 March, 2009, when an unidentified 45-year-old female scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans. It remains unclear whether or not she was ever infected with the virus or if the experimental vaccine proved beneficial
This text was added by this IP address on Mar 28, 2009 [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

3 revert rule

You have made 2 reverts already today on e-cigarette. You should not revert again. WP:3RR AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. You have no consensus for the change you made in ordering of sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. A notice has been submitted to the Edit warring board. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Doc James reported by User:AlbinoFerret (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

EVD Importance Rating

Hi Doc, I hope you are well and not too tired given the rather vigorous debates I've observed over at electronic cigarette. So, quick question for you, in your opinion, what's keeping the EVD page from reaching top importance in its rating? I'm wondering about this after reading the Wikiproject Medicine page's definition of top importance: "Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to medicine. Strong interest from non-professionals around the world. Usually a large subject with many associated sub-articles. Less than 1% of medicine-related articles achieve this rating." It seems a bit ill-defined to me honestly (the separation of high and top importance), but I think this may now be in the realm of top importance (or will be in the near future). What are your thoughts? Also, on a side note, finally fixed the annoying reference issue that was going on. Apparently it was because there was a link to something on the West Africa page and the reference there was not copied over to the main EVD page. The red at the bottom of the EVD page was irritating me like an itch I couldn't scratch. Also, what else do you think is needed for the article to reach GA? It looks fairly comprehensive as it currently stands and at this point we've mainly been tightening things up, rewording, fixing references, etc. It seems like there isn't much content being added (aside from statistical updates, new cases receiving media attention, etc.), so I'm curious what more would be needed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The disease does not affect people globally. Thus IMO is high rather than top importance, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Awkward wording

I understand why this makes sense on its face. It is in fact incorrect for reasons I mentioned on talk [16], and as explained at archived talk we did reached a broad consensus in July to use the more complicated wording (the wording you reverted from). However, I believe that summarizing the source (Ernst '11) correctly is ALWAYS going to be awkward because of it very nature -- it's is a review of reviews of efficacy from 2000-2009, and many of those reviews are based on old and flawed RCT's. Most of these reviews found for efficacy but with caveats, so Ernst cites some more recent RCT's with better designs and negative findings that he believes portend what reviews will show in the future. Supportive excerpts below.

To the extent this source is based on outdated reviews, and requires a nuanced summary that that fosters disagreements, we shouldn't rely on it, at least not summarily in the lede. Have proposed a solution at talk Talk:Acupuncture#Better_sources_for_efficacy_in_lede.3B_MEDDATE. That's the essential part; if you're wondering about the wording dispute it's below.

Details on Ernst '11 and wording dispute

From Ernst '11:

The majority of the early reviews [from 1989-2000] arrived at negative conclusions, while the majority of the 57 recent reviews [the dataset, from 2000-2009] were positive. Yet there are many contradictions and doubts...

And at top of p. 762 he cites some newer RCT's:

This view [that acupuncture's effects are nonspecific] was further strengthened by a recent randomized controlled trial in patients with osteoarthritis examining the effects of acupuncturists’ communication style [128][ Suarez-Almazor, 2009]. Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham. Moreover, a communication style generating high expectations in patients resulted in improved outcomes compared to a normal style, regardless of the type of acupuncture administered.

The phrase "real acupuncture was no better than sham" is referring to the particular RCT cited, Suarez-Almazor 2009. It is therefore not a correct reading to represent that statement as on overall finding of the review.

That's obvious to me and some others (e.g. [17][18]), but not all agree. For example, User:QuackGuru said: "Actually the high-quality randomized controlled trials did not find that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture. That would be a misinterpretation of the source and the conclusion of an editor. It was the 2011 source that came to that conclusion." [19]

In this case QuackGuru's reading is simply mistaken. But if the source lends itself to misinterpretation, and is hard to summarize concisely, and is based on outdated studies (sometimes very much so), those are all good reasons to replace it with newer, clearer sources. Ernst '11 correctly predicted that future reviews would show a trend toward the null; it makes sense to use them now.

regards, --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 15:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC) (you can reply below rather than at my page; I will follow this page as needed)

I am of the opinion that one can just summarize the conclusions of the review which is "in conclusion, numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain." [20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely agree there. Let's see if that's acceptable at talk. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 02:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for cutting to the chase -- I sometimes get lost in the details, and of course Ernst '11 is fine as long as we don't start parsing the hell out of it.[21] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 03:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Break from wikipedia

I have left a message on my user page regarding how I feel about my experience today on Wikipedia. I believe that you are in a position within the organization to address my concern and I request attention to the situation I perceived. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

FeatherPluma. My apologies as I did not mean to come across as harsh. For obvious reasons right now we have a duty to make sure that our Ebola related content is as accurate as possible. The popular press fairly frequently makes mistakes and we need to be careful not to repeat them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out to me, I appreciate it, as well as your promptness. You did not come over as harsh but I do thank you. I enjoy the intensity and passion we each bring. I agree with you totally on the sense of duty. I get it. There is no problem there at all. My problem is the (other) editor who I perceive as "ganging up" with inappropriate pressure for me to stand down on the issue of SUBSTANCE by PUSHING an agenda related to the FORM of the reference style. I know it's a "current affairs" article, so I am able to factor that in. But the offending message, despite being "polite", is an example of what I think cannot go on here. Take care. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've thought a bit more about how I experienced things today. I think that I am not really complaining about the "other" editor as an individual, because what irks me is I've noticed this as a pattern. What I think likely happens is that an editor starts work on an article, and the wiki system flags the article watchers, who arrive "simultaneously and independently", and then the watching senior editors both "come at" the article and start to address the first person. And by not thinking of how it will come across, the second watcher skewers the original contributor in a two pronged thrust. This comes over as abuse, and the flurry of edits causes wiki conflicts that lock out the system. I think the solution is a policy recommendation to give the process some space if the original editor and the first watcher are making headway, which in my experience is usually the case. Otherwise, people (not me, lots of people) are going to be overwhelmed and driven away, even if they are good at multitasking. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think that is a good point and will be something I will keep in mind. I too received like 6 edit conflicts on this article today. Not only is it heavily read but it is also heavily edited. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are on the front page of the New York Times

Congratuatlions!: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/business/media/wikipedia-is-emerging-as-trusted-internet-source-for-information-on-ebola-.html. We haven't interacted much, but as another Wikimedian who contributes in the biomedical domain, I have admired your work for a while. It keeps Wikipedia strong. Cheers, Emw (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

BRAVO! Formerly 98 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

congratulations

[22]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. All the great work Wikipedians have done over many years is beginning to be noticed by the wider world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
My congratulations too. A great article, and a great wikipedian. Many thanks from all of us for your hard work. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Congrats - makes up for all the revert wars etc. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-done, we'll all bask in your reflected glory :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well done! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Well deserved personally and great publicity for the entire project. Brilliant job! Boghog (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh no. This will just make Doc J more insufferable than he already is. 68.10.195.29 (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (Transcendental Meditation movement) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Hi Doc, I hope you've been well since we last spoke. Over at prolotherapy, a new user has been making some edits and has tried to justify them, but I have concerns related to WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH and I'm not sure if his explanation justifies the addition of the material. Since you have more expertise in the domain of Wikipedia rules, guidelines, etc. than I do, I was hoping you would tell me if what he said sounds right and take a look at the diff: [23] Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better thank you. From your edits I see my concerns about the added content were not unfounded. Thanks again! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Phenobarbital edits

Recently I saw what you've done to the page Phenobarbital. Although I don't think everything you've done is bad by any means, your complete elimination of a chemistry section confuses me. Why eliminate it? It's synthetic approach is unique amongst barbiturate drugs. Because of that fact, its specific chemistry information is nowhere else to be found on Wikipedia. Additionally it was superbly well cited with not only creditable sources but also with freely available sources to anyone (no pay walled information). Was this an oversight on your part or is there some sort of logic that I am missing? I very much want to restore my edits by pressing the undo button but out of general respect I am showing some restraint. Convince me please.

ThunderSkunk (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a copy and paste issue (ie plagiarism). Let me double check and get back to you.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This content [24] from [25] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolving the plagiarism

I did a google book search using the terms that were previously found in the prior chemistry section and I now see your point. I definitely did notice that the original author plagiarized large portions of his/her entry (probably from this book). I reintroduced the chemistry section and did my best to make it different enough from that book source by paraphrasing its words and finding of my own sources to support the work. I don't know how different I can make the section without destroying its readability though... If you think I could improve the section in some way let me know and we can work something out.

ThunderSkunk (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The key is to write content one sentence by one sentence while never using the copy and paste buttons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Suicidality in Cluster headache

Best on article talk page

Doc James,

Firstly, I should point out that the section you are attempting to edit is named "Pain". As I understand it, "Suicide" is not descriptive of "Pain" of Cluster Headache and the term's relevance to "Pain" in the "Pain" titled section of the CH article is questionable. Perhaps its placement within the article ; "Cluster Headache" needs revision.

The term "Suicide" has significant meaning in its own right and although clinically relevant to a medical professional engaged in correct differential diagnosis of headache conditions, who is taking a detailed patient history, in a clinical environment, the term "Suicide" should perhaps be avoided when attempting to describe specifically, the "pain" of a medical condition.

We have established that "Suicide Headache" is not a descriptive term for the Pain of Cluster Headache, but a simple colloquial, or non-factual reference. However, some people posting here at Wiki seem to feel that in order to emphasize their little known condition; Cluster Headache (I empathize, rather frustratingly), that the term "Suicide" be used, as in "Suicide Headache", to contextually emphasize the severity of their condition. This is as you say colloquial, or informal language, hardly well founded in research terms, or encyclopedic in nature.

Use of the term "Suicide" in relation to Cluster Headache is not particularly indicative of the condition, how one may live with the conditiion, helpful to patients, or helpful in how health care professionals may go about treating the condition. The "colloquial" name "Suicide Headache" is regularly thrown around throughout the literature, with very little evidence to back the assertion. Repeated assertion alone does make a colloquial termionology, correct, appropriate, or indeed, indicative of statistical suicidality in Cluster Headache.

As you will know, "Suicidal Ideation", when compared with one's willingness to act on such ideation, make "Suicide" and "Suicidal ideation", two quite different terminologies, with differing clinical relevance (around 53%, see below) to the topic being discussed here; Cluster Headache.

See "Cluster Headache in the United States of America: Demographics, Clinical Characteristics, Triggers, Suicidality, and Personal Burden* head_2028 1..15 Todd D. Rozen, MD, FAAN; Royce S. Fishman, BA

And I quote:

"Suicidality.—

Cluster headache has been nick-named the suicide headache but no studies have ever looked at the rate of suicidal ideations or true suicide attempts in a large cluster headache population. Very alarming is that 55% of the US cluster headache population has had suicidal thoughts while 2% have tried to commit suicide. In addition, 50% of survey responders also demonstrated self-injurious behavior during attacks, making the situation more deleterious to the cluster headache sufferer. These numbers, combined with the extensive delay in getting a correct diagnosis for cluster headache, put such emphasis on the need for proper diagnosis and treatment in this syndrome because with delay or mistreatment, the patient may actually harm themselves. Cluster headache in a way should be considered a neurologic emergency condition based on this issue."

http://www.clusterheadaches.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/Cluster_Headache_in_USA.pdf

Perhaps, rather than adopt a combative stance here, at the risk of violating Wikipedia's "Edit War" rule (with which I see you are acquainted), you could help others (like me) to productively create an addition to the article; "Cluster Headache" that could include accurate, relevant statistics and information on suicidality, from reliable sources. Perhaps citing the survey results above, as they are the closest thing to a data set that we currently have access to on CH and suicidality. Perhaps a new section "Suicidality", with an internal Wiki link to the Wiki page "Suicide" would be appropriate?

I have 35 years experience as a chronic Cluster Headache patient. Big deal. But I regularly liaise with patients, researchers and medical specialists alike, in raising awareness and also in phamacological/surgical/clinical trial work. I and many others I have helped through online CH forums are growing tired of having their Cluster Headache condition defined, or even hijacked by parameters like, one's willingness to suicide.

Conversely, if you research, you will find FAR more colloquial reference to the CH patients willingness to battle on, to live a productive and happy life despite their CH condition, than you will find about suicide. Perhaps the section should indicate our (patients) collective willingmess to avoid suicide, as most do.

Medical professionals seem to think they are doing patients a favor (conveying the severity) in utilizing this termoinology, when in fact, many of us with CH feel that our condition is being hijacked by a terminology and by associatioon, an act which we are neither prepared to carry out, nor has it shown to be endemic to the condition. Medical qualification (if any) does not preclude one from discussing Cluster Headache, nor does it give anyone the right to monopolize definition(s) of any medical condition.

I ask, kindly, as an inexperienced user of Wikipedia, but an experienced "CHer" for assistance in correcting the article "Cluster Headache", removing "Suicidality" from the section on "Pain" and finding an appropriate place to cover what is a very small part of living with the condition; suicidality.

If you feel the need to reiterate suicidality in Cluster Headache, please do so, but be assured that the CH community are watching and would like to be involved in spreading awareness of more factually correct information, as I have supplied above.

Of course my opinion is irrelevant to the article. I wish for nothing more than well researched material and factual correctness in the article about Cluster Headache. If you cannot provide assistance to others in attaining these attributes for the article, then I and others politely ask and would greatly appreciate it if you stepped aside and allowed those who can to post factual information, "Doc".

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51505150VH (talk • contribs) 03:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Best to have this discussion on the talk page of cluster headaches. Someone else added it originally. The source supports suicidal thoughts during the pain thus why in the pain section. We could move to the "other" section. Moved the other bit to society and culture.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

more info on snakebite ad NTD

More information on snakebite as NTD available here in my article : http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f628 (Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC))

Great thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all you have done Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agmatine 1

Dear Dr. Heilman,

I hope everything's well and that you had time to check out my last (October 3) agmatine version on the Wikipedia talk page. Let me know if it is satisfactory and ready to be posted.

A reminder has also been sent via email.

Thanks and Best… Gmgilad (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Gad

As per the talk page it is unclear what you are getting at and what refs support what content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear James,

I somehow missed your last response. I must tell you though that your answer relating to my last version as posted on the talk page is unclear.

You are stating that the version is somehow unclear, that the citation are somehow not supporting the content and that you cannot follow what I am getting at. Yet you neither indicate why it is unclear, nor why you cannot follow it.

Several colleagues who have read it by now, have indicated that this version is clear and accurate, adequately referenced and unbiased.

At this point your objection is entirely unexplained. Leaving the misleading and substandard Wikipedia entry on Agmatine as is, is entirely your responsibility!

Best… Gmgilad (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Gad

Paraphrasing and revert to old edit

Hi James,

You dropped me a message regarding a 'copy and paste' section in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feline_leukemia_virus Can you pinpoint me to the part so I can make corrections if needed.

Also the article seems to have been reverted to the previous iteration. May I ask why?

Thanks,

Anupam

Yes so a number of bits were word for word the same as the sources you were using.
Additionally this source is not particularly good [26]
You added "68-73% of Infertile Female Cats are FeLV positive and 60% of queens that abort are feLV positive. Fetal death, resorption and placental involution may occur during pregnancy"


Ref says "68–73% of infertile queens have been reported to be FeLV-positive, and 60% of queens that abort are FeLV-positive (although abortion is a relatively uncommon cause of feline infertility). Fetal death, resorption, and placental involution may occur in the middle trimester of pregnancy"
You add "About 30% of FeLV infected cats develop lymphoid or myeloid tumors which are malignant. (e.g., lymphoma, lymphoid leukemia, erythremic myelosis)."
Ref says "About 30% of FeLV-infected cats develop lymphoid or myeloid tumors which are malignant, cancerous type. (e.g., lymphoma, lymphoid leukemia, erythremic myelosis)"
The key is to read the ref, understand the ref, and then simplify the content and put it in your own words. Never use the copy and paste buttons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi,

The paraphrasing is because the specific points you mentioned were stats. There is only so many ways one can rephrase a fact but I get your point and will rephrase them. About the source not "being good", would appreciate a more specific opinion on the lines of what is right or wrong, given we are dealing with a feline medical condition here. If the source cites anything incorrectly, that would be the right direction of discussion.

Thanks,

Anupam

Reply

thanks, I will abide Monoclone (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

Dispute resolution re McNeill for Electronic cigarette article

I requested dispute resolution with respect to this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Violation_of_consensus

Please join the discussion. Mihaister (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

text

you removed a lot of text that I put in Monoclone (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Monoclone Yes I did. It was not very well supported by references. Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve references

You suggested I improve the quality of my medical references. Is there a particular article I worked on where I can go improve my edits?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of the recent edits added content without references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Rabies diagnosis

Greetings! Regarding this edit: As you know, rabies is a disease of both humans and non-human animals. Technically, non-human animals can be euthanized and diagnosed with rabies via immunofluorescence microscopy of brain tissue prior to the onset of clinical disease (see the statement on "stray or unwanted" animals in the Zoonotic Risk section from this page of the Merck Veterinary Manual). The sentence you added to the lede about diagnosis is, in my opinion, too broad. While the majority of the rabies article is specific to humans, I'm not sure I agree with your argument that "[i]n humans is assumed unless stated otherwise." I think we should favor precision and lean away from statements that are broader than what the supported citation says (i.e. the citation is specific to humans). What are your thoughts on this? Kindest regards, AlphaEta 02:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AlphaEta It is an excellent question. Can rabies be diagnosed in animals before symptoms begin? The diagnosis can also be made once a person is dead.
The Merck ref says "If the dog, cat, or ferret responsible for the exposure is stray or unwanted, it may be euthanized as soon as possible and submitted for rabies diagnosis. Since the advent of testing by immunofluorescence microscopy, there is no value in holding such animals to “let the disease progress” as an aid to diagnosis." which does not appear to be saying that they have no symptoms when diagnosable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah! I didn't realize there is an article dedicated to rabies in animals. Clearly you are correct in your assertion that rabies is implicitly about humans. This eases my concern. Thanks! AlphaEta (talk to me) 05:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Still an interesting discussion. I still do not see a source that supports diagnosis before rabies hits the CNS of the animal / symptoms develop. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Check out this PNAS article that shows detectable viral RNA and anti-rabies antibodies in asymptomatic hyenas. Very interesting! I don't know if anyone followed up on this, but I'd really like to know more about it.
I also found a nice general article in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases discussing molecular rabies diagnosis methods. It supports the claim that RT-PCR based detection isn't reliably possible until two days after the onset of symptoms. Thanks! AlphaEta (talk to me) 06:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI (Talk:Sewage sludge):

WP:RMCI. It's not really good form to express an opinion in a move request and then make the move yourself two minutes later, the discussion should be closed per the instructions, and move discussions are generally left open for 6-7 days (especially when there are points made on other side, as there were here). I'm not trying to advocate bureaucracy, but it gives the impression that you pushed through a change you wanted, and the closing message still needs to be added. Dekimasuよ! 04:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dekimasu It had been open for a week. Discussion in fact had been going on since Oct 24th. There was not a lot of discussion but the majority supported the move. Agree I really did not need to express an opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

South Beach Diet article needs medical attention

There are some edit wars going on around the South Beach Diet article, but there is a particular need for some expert advice regarding how to deal with medical claims (which are complicated by the non-medically-oriented popularity of the diet). If there are medical expert volunteers available, it would be quite helpful. All is revealed on Talk:South_Beach_Diet. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems someone is looking at it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Yup, I was in the process of cleaning it up (and Doc has now further cleaned out some poor sourcing). Haven't been aware of any edit warring at this article though ... ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I feel better knowing that there aren't false medical claims on the page. LaMona (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Abortion lead

Can you tweak uterus to womb? That was brought up in GA review. - RoyBoy 01:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hum. Not sure which one is simplier. Uterus gets 5 times more hits than womb on google. Have not really heard the term used in Canada. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Being from Canada myself I hear ya, but womb is more frequently used in the abortion "Note 1"; that has to mean something... at least for North America. For non-native English speakers I am unsure, but I know a few to ask. - RoyBoy 04:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I am easy either way. Let me ask some people :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Cool, also out of tech curiosity... I got 3mil hits on Google for Womb and 2.6mil for uterus. Given your profession and Wikidedication, are you in a maybe you are in a filter bubble? - RoyBoy 04:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I get 28M for womb and 25M for uterus now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear God... they are multiplying! :p RoyBoy 04:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
CRUK patient pages go with "womb cancer" fwiw, though other parts of the site use "uterine". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Oseltamivir

Reviewing the sources, looks like you are mostly correct so thanks for the fix. From my POV, truly unfortunate that

  • Roche did not do the right trials
  • Jefferson did not submit this meta analysis to an independently edited and peer reviewed journal for external validation of his analysis protocol. This would seem to me to have been an obvious thing to do given the apparent level of skepticism and general disregard of his studies of influenza vaccines.
  • How little the studies of this drug tell us about whether it would be useful if and when a nasty flu with 5% mortality sweeps through the country.

Formerly 98 (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Formerly 98 Yes definately not a perfect situation. By the way interested in welcoming / helping to guide a class of pharmacy students? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I really ought to get back to the WHO list as well. What is involved? Formerly 98 (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The students all stand out fairly well here [27] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania

Pretty sure I won't be able to make it, but the subject might be ready for broader discussion by then. I'm thinking the initial teething pains have been addressed, but we'll really need to look at some tools to manage the blacklist before seriously thinking of any scope expansion. Also, there should be some kind of liason with the wp:CCI and wp:SPI crews to help catch any serial infringers. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes a button to push that automatically adds a site to the blacklist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

New WikiProject Medicine User

Hi, I'm relatively new to wikipedia as far as contributions. I'd like to be involved in the WPMED activity. Any guidance you can offer is appreciated. I'm a recently minted Internal Medicine physician, doing both inpatient and outpatient medicine. Where to start? How to best collaborate? Been poking around on the project talk pages but that doesn't seem to be where the action is. Thanks. Carlos Rivas/talk to me 09:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Carlos. Welcome and great to have you here. We have some guidance pages here:
With respect to topics to work on, we have a list of our most viewed medical articles by how "good" they are here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages. I often pick highly viewed low quality articles to work on. Additionally I would like to introduce you to User:Jfdwolff who is a fellow internist however in the UK. He has recently been working on Guillain–Barré syndrome Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello losrivas - feel free to start hacking away at any article that looks important to you. The real action is usually on WT:MED, the medical discussion page. I am notoriously unfocused but I've recently been working on MI, Guillain-Barré and sickle cell disease.
I'm generally around for advice as well, although I suspect James is online a lot more than I am... JFW | T@lk 17:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, will start working and will be in touch if help is needed. Most important thing is getting more people involved in editing. Advice on how to recruit more colleagues as editors is appreciated. Carlos Rivas/talk to me 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Am also happy to touch base by voice if you wish to discuss some of the projects we are working on. Was just in San Fran helping to launch our third medical elective at UCSF and will likely be back in the area in 6 to 12 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Would be fun to meet in person. email me when you have plans set to come back to the SF Bay Area. Carlos Rivas/talk to me 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Carlos Rivas sounds great. Drop me a note if you need input on anything Wikipedia related. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Responding to comment on talk page

Hi,

This is Yen-Ling and Eric Youngstrom (the course instructor).

We are reading and digesting the feedback. It may be next week before we are able to respond in detail. Dr. Youngstrom is speaking at a workshop in New Hampshire the end of this week and will be offline for several days.

We appreciate the feedback and advice. We will consult with Frank Jones, our regional ambassador who is familiar with the project, and then be back in touch.

Thanks for your patience, as well as your time and comments!

Eric & Yen-Ling YenLingChen (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit

Hello, Dr. Heilman, I am Dr. Hamilton, an OB/GYN in Oklahoma. I was reading your article on the website of the New York Times. It seems you have done great work on wikipedia, and to be the head of the emergency medicine department at your institution at 35 years old is very impressive.

I have recently edited the page on preeclampsia to include a convenient source for all the pertinent laboratory values and their reference ranges. The page on CBC has a very similar infobox. You deleted my addition. How can I make this information better/acceptable so that you will not delete it again?

Thanks, Dr. Hamilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharychasehamilton (talk • contribs) 22:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not delete your edit. I moved your content lower in the article. I also fixed some capitals and some of the links. Please see here Pre-eclampsia#Diagnosis. By the way thank you for joining us :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Test Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ebola PPE videos

FYI, I have created a deletion discussion regarding the Ebola PPE videos. They are excellent videos, but because they have multiple authors (only one of which is USGov) it isn't clear that they have been properly licensed so that Wikimedia would be able to host them. Dragons flight (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, yes appears we may need clarification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Antioxidant#Pharmaceuticals

I think this is probably fine, but since I worked at Upjohn while tirilazad mesylate was under development, wanted to bring this edit to an admin's attention in case you want to do a COI/NPOV review. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Look fine. There use is poorly supported by evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

explanation for the risk-vs-age Down syndrome chart?

Dr. Heilman, I'm just wondering if you have a possible explanation for why the risk-vs-age chart of Down syndrome (that you have up on the main Wikipedia page) rolls over at age 45? In other words, what is the current best explanation for why the risk decreases past age 45?

Thanks for your comments! james — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.128.55 (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The reference used discusses it some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I am the professor of the nursing students who contributed edits to the Stroke page. Thank you for the support and guidance you provided them. LynnMcCleary (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Will look at it further when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Stroke

Hi

I submitted an edit request to stroke thrombolysis last month and you responded with a comment that one of my references was too old and that the treatment is not controversial. I attempted to justify my original request and answer these comments but have not seen a reply. I assume I am not using the system correctly. Could you please advise? I am happy to supply references demonstrating a worldwide controversy, and list reasons why a large number of clinicians do not believe the evidence supports thrombolysis. I just think the article should be balanced by acknowledging the controversy, as occurs in the thrombolysis section of Wikipedia.

Regards

Chris Johnstone58.7.35.54 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing any reply here [28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, struggling with navigation around the system. OK, I am still keen to advocate for editing of the stroke thrombolysis section as I submitted: You said that you prefer secondary sources to be within 5 years. I assume you are referring to the 2009 Cochrane review in my references. The 2014 version is identical except for the inclusion of IST-3, and still has the following problems:

• 10 of the 22 studies analysed in the “alive and independent” analysis (1.6) were inappropriate for inclusion – one had fatal methodological deficiencies (Wang), and the remainder measured brain reperfusion instead of clinical function as the primary outcome, gave the thrombolysis via intra-arterial infusion, or were very small (n=16-57) • Heterogeneity of results was significant (I2= 39%), yet the conclusion was not modified accordingly • None of the studies except IST-3 accounted for confounding due to treatment in a stroke unit (the only proven therapy besides thrombolysis, with superior effect on mortality and morbidity). In an overcrowded hospital, some patients may not have been treated in a stroke unit, and this would create significant baseline imbalance. • Prof Wardlaw has gained significant financial and material benefit from the manufacturer. She also assisted in designing, writing, and then evaluating IST-3 and ECASS-3. This is a major conflict of interest.

You also stated that thrombolysis is not controversial. If a significant number of clinicians believe that the therapy is unproven, then that would constitute a controversy. • American surveys of EP’s have shown poor support for thrombolysis1, 2 • A number of published letters, editorials, discussion articles etc criticising this treatment3, 4 • Debate on the efficacy has been aired on Australian public television (SBS insight 8 October 2013), as well as published in the BMJ5. • EM websites critical, across multiple countries: Emergency Medicine Ireland.com, the NNT, Ryan Radecki (emlitofnote), Lifeinthefast lane, etc • Dr Roger Shinton (British neurologist) calls for a review of therapy authorisation in the Lancet6. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) of the UK are complying. • Emergency Medicine bodies around the world fail to endorse this treatment. (eg American Academy of Emergency Physicians, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Australasian College for Emergency Medicine). Latter has commissioned an independent systematic review. ACEP is now having to review it’s policy statement following member outcry.


• 1. Bentley J BB, Demaerschalk J, et al. Views of Emergency Physicians on Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke. Journal of Brain Disease. 2009;1:29-37. • 2. Brown DL, Barsan WG, Lisabeth LD, et al. Survey of emergency physicians about recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. Annals of Emergency Medicine;46(1):56-60. • 3. Hoffman JR. Thrombolysis for stroke: policy should be based on science, and not on politics, money or fear of malpractice. Emergency Medicine Australasia. 2006;18(3):215-8. • 4. Fatovich DM. Believing is seeing: Stroke thrombolysis remains unproven after the third international stroke trial (IST-3). Emergency Medicine Australasia. 2012;24(5):477-9. • 5. Brown SG, Macdonald SP, Hankey GJ. Do risks outweigh benefits in thrombolysis for stroke? BMJ;347:f5215. • 6. Shinton R. Questions about authorisation of alteplase for ischaemic stroke. Lancet;384(9944):659-60.58.7.35.54 (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with the PCOS article

A *lot* of POV has been slid in since my last review. Many, many, many uncited claims as not being ovarian in nature, with zero citations and tons of citation needed tags (I added some myself). As this is non-emergent in nature, but needs attention, I thought of you first to suggest (or suggest to) Wiki experts on the topic that could redress this mess.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Wzrd1 feel free to trim primary sources. Unfortunately it is often an uphill battle. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

synthesis sock guy

I was trying to remember who was the original account for this sock. still running wild... do you remember? wanted to bring this to SPI or persistent vandals...

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's this guy... Zad68 14:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks!  :) Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is the last report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#Sock Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I filed an SPI on all these and the additional ones in your ANI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nuklear Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Doc James or Zad would you please indef Lukashenk0 - I have put articles he created up for speedy deletion and when folks review that, they should find the account blocked... thanks! Jytdog (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus disease

Please see the talk page for the article. An editor added a reference that cited a CDC infographic. This addressed the concern that "only" was not properly sourced. It was almost immediately redacted. The reason was along the lines of "overcitation/not a point of controversy". In fact, however, the added reference was the "only" reference that supported the "only". And it most definitely is a source of controversy. It would appear that it's enough of a controversy that several US governors have a different take from the CDC/WHO. I've spent considerable time looking at "only" very carefully. I have my opinion about the issue. Actually I disagree with the US governors. But that's not the point. I have looked at both citations attached to the sentence in detail. The point is verifiable sourcing, which if you look carefully, is presently absent. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay sure. What US governors say is not a reliable source :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The relevant issue is / was the absence of proper sourcing. Thank you for adding back the reference.FeatherPluma (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure my reading of the previous sources was it supported it. But agree the CDC supports it even more clearly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The CDC also released new video training on donning and removal of protective equipment and clothing. As one who has went through the military version, had one epic fail and assorted minor fails and later trained on the subject... I resorted to methylene blue tainting of the outer layers. It worked. Ended up blue myself once, which taught the instructor more caution.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Per request

Hi Jim and congrats on the write up. Noam emailed me for comment but it seems better not to wash linen in public I did not contact him back but nice that WP got some press.

You asked me, to wit: Can you explain how this stigmatises that subgroup of people with HIV/AIDS who have an AIDS diagnosis (PWAs)?

By "this" I would say the English-language custom of naming imposes a unique form of confusion onto lay readers which problem does not exist in German, Spanish, Polish, Czech. Russian and Italian WMF projects in that they all have separate articles for HIV and for AIDS. I don't know that they have articles for "HIV Infection" but IMHO it would benefit everyone if all projects had articles on HIV Infection, AIDS, HIV virus, and HIV epidemiology.

I don't see a fast consensus for an en.wikipedia.org MOVE HIVAIDS=>AIDS tho that would be consistent with WMF globally. THUS IMHO we have a special obligation to very swiftly dispel any confusion in readers minds who might think that HIV infection and AIDS are the same thing. This concern was raised last month by Michael, and you rightly introduced the concept "spectrum" which as I recollect was then put into the article text.

The assertion that there is stigmatization is based also on the empirical fact of legislation and other forms of repression against PWA, gay and HIV positive people.

Hopefully this explains how confusion, exacerbated by the naming absent clear direct language in the lede, can create a stigma. You do agree I would expect, that there is a problem of stigma and that it does occur?

Wikidgood (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We do need to clarify the three main terms. HIV/AIDS is more or less the same as HIV disease. AIDS is a type of HIV disease.[29] This seems fairly clear right now. I am clear on what your concern is exactly? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

not generally accepted as a risk factor

Regarding your removing of my Buy Whom Tag on the Pancreatic cancer page. Can you explain the problem in asking for clarification as to who accepts diet not to be a risk factor? I read the sources cited at the end of the paragraph, and none of them don't mention that. --Zaurus (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes the issue is that it was unreffed. The refs do support concerns. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The one ref says "Dietary factors could conceivably influence the risk of developing pancreatic cancer" It doesn't say about the "not having general acceptance". "Diet is not generally accepted as a direct risk factor" sounds like a weasel words to me. I prefered the "combined with obesity version" you made two days ago. If there are refs I'm missing, please point them out.--Zaurus (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Thank you for raising them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we added material covered by Creative Commons Attribution? How to ensure the attribution? http://www.wellcomeimages.org/ "Copyrighted work available under Creative Commons Attribution only licence CC BY 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ "

Thanks, Formerly 98 (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes from my understanding we can add CC BY SA 4.0 and CC BY 4.0. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You are more than welcome to look in on my edits on Pharmaceutical industry from time to time. Historically the article has done a great job of covering criminal convictions and the creation of phony journals, but I'm trying to add a little more history and nuance. However there is a danger of overcompensating, and a second set of eyes would be welcome.

I'm running through some key drug class introductions and will back fill with key regulatory items (such as the sulfa drug diethylene glycol elixar episode and resulting legislation) as I circle back. Expect to be on this on and off for about 2 weeks. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

On holidays. Will be back in 10 days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, how are you? really this information is a true content. --Pediainsight (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Which information? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've started

Hi James. I've begun here: User:Part/sandbox. Will transition to main space soon. Part (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thrive+ Hangover Cure

Hi Doc James,

It seems a little bit like you have it out for me in a negative way and have been targeting me in an unfair manner, such as continually deleting dihydromyricetin from the potentially beneficial remedies list on Hangover for having peer reviewed studies, but not having an aggregation like a Cochrane Review--of the "potentially beneficial" list, none of the compounds on that list have an aggregate review like you required for DHM. Since that is the case, the entire list should have been removed! I say this not to start a fight, but to point out how you have been using a measure with me that is not common on Wikipedia or among you--as evidenced by your allowing of all the other potentially beneficial remedies.

You don't need to defend yourself on this point, I am asking that from here on out we work together for the sake of others to produce the best possible Wikipedia pages.

That being said I must say that I appreciate you for everything that you do for Wikipedia and keeping an accurate internet.

I also wanted to thank you for the "toned down" and "to spammy" edits, I thought those were quite nice and made the article read better. I understand that I am related to the product/company and that typically is frowned upon, but it is not disallowed outright. It is put in place so people do not do things like advertise, withhold information, write biased, etc. Since I am close to the subject it is easy for me to get the content out there, but it is really helpful when you can come back and make edits to make the article read more objective. That works out well.

The article does fit within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). I consulted this for some time before writing and came to clear conclusions that it has the necessary secondary sources and most definitely fits: "Notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.'

Maybe the article needs to be reworded to focus on the company, rather than the product aspect, but really the two are bound pretty closely like 5-hour Energy. Therefore even if the product doesn't have an aggregate review/or study of it's effectiveness, it can still garner notability. Just take the case of 5-hour Energy, their product was shown to be no more effective than coffee, but that doesn't make it any less notable.

So I will remove the deletion tag, but I would rather like to request you to help me to work on the article to fit with Wikipedia guidelines rather than take the easy way out and simply criticize it and nominate it for deletion. Thanks for the help that you have done so far and I look forward to working with you over the next few days to get the article looking great and being informative to people. I also look forward to getting to know you better.

Have a great day/night, and I will see your messages back in the morning, Brookspowell629 (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629

This has nothing to do with you personally. This is only about the content in question on Wikipedia. We typically require secondary sources for health claims. If you see other health claims being made by primary sources would be happy to look at them. With respect to removing the deletion discussion. This is an open discussion and one which it is probably best for you not to close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

your opinion ebola virus /west Africa

I deem your opinion highly as such- 1. [30] [31] indicate 4 deaths and 70 quarantined in Mali in the last 24 hours ( after the inicial death of 2 year old). 2. [32] indicates the situation in Liberia is not as rosy as the media indicates. and 3.[33] indicates the situation in Sierra Leone is getting much worse, for these reasons I believe it might be wise to move the "mid-importance" to "high-importance" for wikiproject medicine, your opinion would be welcomed .thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You have mail

Formerly 98 (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep editing my update on resveratrol for no good reason

I am getting tired of a very unscientific reason from someone with a Doctor title. Please understand that there is no reason why all reference should be whatever you use for that term secondary articles, which I am assuming is review or meta-analysis articles. Read the articles I link and their results, before you edit anything again please and even better, please see how biased and wrong the health section is in terms of claiming there is no evidence in humans.

The human clinical evidence is there and you must provide some real arguments or contribute with something. I must assume you are the author of the hopeless mess I am cleaning up. Since you continue to hold Wiki hostage instead of actually reading the last 5 years of resveratrol research? Dr.Wonderland (talk 23:22, November 14, 2014‎ (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS and stop using primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
When it comes to biomedical information, Wikipedia has a much higher standard than most scientific journals, newspapers, and magazines. We are not the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Medical Hypotheses, or the National Enquirer. That's why most physicians now turn to Wikipedia first for medical information before turning to textbooks. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Postural Restoration

Hello Doc,

Nice article about your work here in that Big Apple newspaper. Well done!

I know that you are busy, but if you have a couple of minutes to spare, could you please take a look at Postural Restoration and its talk page? Your insights would be appreciated. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like spammy to me. No references of any quality to support it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I´ve never edited "Postural Restoration" and I don´I know anything about the

subject. Some Jimxxxx did. 

     jmak (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Amyloidosis

Hello -

I've noticed a bunch of recent edits on the amyloidosis page that I think need some real help - making a confusing term more confusing. Can you see the talk page there? Thanks

Wawot1 (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Will take me some time to comment as I am travelling. Just did some simply rearranging rather than adding of content myself Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ebola

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at FT2's talk page. --11:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Allergy to squid

Hi James. Could you comment on this? It has a source, but I don't know how reliable the information is. I come from a seafood-eating culture and whereas it is common knowlwdge to be allergic or have an allergic reaction to crustacea and bivalvia, I have never heard of such in relation to cephalopoda. Your comments would be most welcome. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ref does not say it is common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Cefalexin

Doc James,

I received the information from your message. Thank you for the information, but I am going to re-add several things. Not to seem belligerent or anything, but I know for a fact that these are true. Cefalexin is a part of the cephalosporin family, which is evident under "Cephalosporin" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2005 edition. I understand that Wikipedia should not be cited in a Wikipedia article, and so I will re-add that information, citing those sources. Lastly, I understand that the SciFinder link does not pull anything up. However, SciFinder is a database and it any copied hyperlinks never take the user to the searched page, just their main search page. I assumed, as we were taught in my class, that in citations, just stating that it was from SciFinder would be enough. All one has to do is search the term "cefalexin" in the database and click on the image of the structure to be taken to the page in which the names are listed.

Thank you for your feedback, and I hope to hear back from you regarding this information.

Rachel

User:Rsattler Encyclopaedia Britannica is not the best source for medical content. Please read WP:MEDRS
The info you added to the drug box will not work as it is not set up to handle the text you added.
The brand names were moved to the end of the article. We do not add an exhaustive list of brand names to the lead as there are often 1000s
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agmatine 2

I would appreciate your response to my email (enclosed below). Gmgilad (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Gad

To start with read the WP:MOS and WP:MEDMOS. There are big blocks of unreffed text here Talk:Agmatine#Research. If you are not sure how to add inline references we have pages that can help you. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear James, We have rephrased the relevant section to indicate the reference wheree required. The referenced review is now cited throughout the Translational Research section and it is clearly indicated in the Human Clinical Studies section so that the reader can now readily understand. I have posted the last version of this part on the Agmatine Talk page (the reference list was added by the system). Let me know... Gmgilad (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Gad

Refs are missing. Some are still primary sources. Capitalization is excessive. You have still not read the links I have given you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI regarding Cheesy

You may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:CheesyAppleFlake. Zad68 05:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes thanks. These sorts of personal attacks sort of reflect badly on the entire project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agmatine 3

Dr. James, 1. I am not using Wikipedia for self promotion as your friend implies! 2. As I have indicated several times before, I am very concerned – as a scientist who devoted over 20 years to research agmatine effects and mechanisms of action - that the Agmatine entry in Wikipedia is bellow standard, incorrect and misleading. 3. I confess of not being versed in the rules of Wikipedia editing, but my version as is, is up to standards, accurate and adequately referenced. It is also unbiased and to infer otherwise is unfair! 4. I have read the links you sent. Wikipedia does not work by iron rules (this is one of its great advantages). Once the entry will be edited, references won't be left missing 5. At this point your objections are apparently entirely excessive. You may on the other hand, help by editing/styling the entry accordingly. 6. As I indicated before, leaving the misleading and substandard Wikipedia entry on Agmatine as is, is entirely your responsibility! 7. At this point, therefore, it is entirely in your hands.

Sincerely, Gmgilad (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Gad

Certainly. You however do appear to sell the stuff [34] Anyway will look more closely when I get home. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Gmgilad, you need to keep this discussion at Talk:Agmatine#Misuse of article for promotion, and not clutter up the good doctor's page. Carrying on the same discussion in two different places is a bad idea. He has that page watchlisted, as do I. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your redirect needs full page protection

Regarding User talk:Jmh649. Your redirect needs full page protection, including its talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Great suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Lymphadanopathy.JPG on Commons

Hi, I've noticed you misspelt the title of this file on Commons (it should be spelt with an e after the d) and I'd like to recommend that you rename it accordingly (granted I realize the opposing side to the argument of its inaccuracy, namely, that it appears on several different Wikis). Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 17:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Supposedly there is an bot that can take care of this and all the links. Sorry about the spelling. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

The editor Gallium31, who you blocked for edit warring, appears to have resumed edit warring on Gallium maltolate as their first edit coming off their block. Yobol (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

South Beach Diet

Hey there James, thanks for getting involved on on the South Beach Diet article recently—and nice to finally cross paths on-wiki! Last week it seemed as if there was just about agreement on an expanded History section for the entry, however one minor disagreement seems to have stalled it, and I am still the last editor to comment—my last message here. If you have time to take another look, I'd love to have your input. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

FGM

Hi James, just to let you know that FGM was promoted to FA. Thank you again for everything you did there, including help with sources. It was really invaluable. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Congrats. Job well done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Bupropion

I left a note at Talk:Bupropion#Bupropion toxicity study in British Columbia about a Canadian study relating to Bupropion. I do not know whether the study is worth mentioning in the Bupropion article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange block notice placement

Hi Doc, I wanted to ask about this edit. Looking at the relevant SPI archive I don't see justification for this. Seems disruptive to me, but I'm not sure whether/how to pursue. -- Scray (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

From a while ago. Haven't looked closely yet. Any specific concern? Never interacted with the user that I remember. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The block notice was placed today, by a non-admin user with a low edit count, and the user on whose page this was placed is not blocked (just retired) AFAICT. -- Scray (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

See [35] or his/her talk page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well...that's different then. Nevermind. Sorry for the distraction - did not see any indication of this block or investigation on the SPI for PPdd linked above, but I should have checked the block log - live and learn. -- Scray (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Your EFT article

Im curious as to why you think you have all the answers regarding the subject, and are unwilling to let those with far more experience edit your article. You seem to want to stand on "science" by calling EFT "pseudo-science"... well, hiding behind a privacy lock and not be willing to hear challenges to your position is the definition of pseudo-science.

Not sure to what you refer. You have made one edit [36] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
seem to be a little extreme to semi protect the article for years ... is it ? What about removing the protection in 2015 to allow new authors to contribute - if things get out of hand we can still go back and add another few month of semi protection. What do you think ? Christophe --基 (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Referring to Emotional Freedom Techniques Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah here [37] Now does not seem to be a good time to unprotect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I assume you do know the rules around protection ... in particular the part about protection not to be used as a preventive measure ?--基 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Certainly. There was disruptive editing and potential for further disruptive editing. We can re look at this issue in 2015. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
are you referring to my edits as disruptive ?--基 (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You did delete a recent review article without a proper explanation, but no I am not. Semi protection does not affect your ability to edit. It does decrease the people that the above piece is attempting to recruit plus the sock puppets. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
funny - I was convinced I mentioned WP:Lead section when edited the Lead section and as you can see I did elaborate on the talk page after you reverted the edit. I am also convinced having read something about involved admins in WP:EN (I do edit more in WP:DE so I am not quite familiar with the rules in the English version of WP).基 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to request that it be unprotected so that the those being actively recruited can edit it. I believe that I protected it last time because of active recruitment for disruptive purposes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I think misunderstand my point - the only thing in the article you cite above that actually hits the spot is the one about WP not following it's own rules - un-protecting the page is the right thing to do ... if vandalism strike we protect it again (it's not like we have to file 4 copies of E211 forms and wait 2 weeks for someone to do it). Leaving it protected for years simply sends the wrong message (in German I would say "we are handing out the sticks to get beaten with") - I have no skin in the game - so really - I don't care all that much. I still think the lead section sucks though (but - by any means - I might not be the right person to fix that) I'll re visit in 2015 more because I am curious ;). So Marry Christmas & a Happy New Year 2015 (no sarcasm - I really mean that).基 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will post at the talk page and see what people think about the current semi protection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Stroke

Hi Doc

Referring back to stroke thrombolysis (archive 75 stroke) you commented on Nov 10: "We could add something about the controversy of tPA in stroke. We just need to make sure that it is supported by secondary sources or position statements from the last 5 years". I did actually post those references on Nov 7. I would like to reactivate my original edit request for the thrombolysis section from October, please. Thanks

Chris Johnstone58.7.244.41 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is still there. Issues include that not all the sources are secondary and not all are from the last 5 years. Thus this proposal needs working. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis question

Hi James, I hope you've been well my friend, I have a quick question about this edit [38]. I'm not sure I understand the reason for the removal of hypotension as a sign of sepsis. A cursory glance of the literature (e.g., here in this 2014 review: http://0-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.library.touro.edu/pmc/articles/PMC3966671/ and here: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4050292;jsessionid=dLRt9dbr5dA4rHlIqQBL.0-granted the second reference is specifically defining it for neutropenic patients) seems to indicate that arterial hypotension as a hemodynamic variable is considered to be a sign of sepsis and not just a sign of severe sepsis and septic shock. Is there disagreement about whether hypotension is considered part of the definition of sepsis as opposed to just being part of septic shock and severe sepsis? If you can clarify for me so I understand, I would be very grateful. =) Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TylerDurden8823 If there is a low blood pressure that is severe sepsis per "Severe sepsis is defined as sepsis plus sepsis-induced organ dysfunction or tissue hypoperfusion" " Sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion is defined as infection-induced hypotension, elevated lactate, or oliguria" [39]. We mention this below thus removed it above to decrease repetition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
So, what of these studies I linked above? Another review from 2009 (http://0-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.library.touro.edu/pmc/articles/PMC3098530/) states the following: "Sepsis is defined according to the clinical signs of a systemic response to infection [10]. However, the clinical symptoms of sepsis including hypotension, tachycardia, tachypnea, hypoperfusion, lactic acidosis, and altered body temperature (>38.3°C or <36°C), are not exclusive to infection and can also be triggered by shock, trauma, or severe injury [2, 11]. The term “severe sepsis” refers to the sepsis-associated failure of multiple organ systems [10]."
From this quote, this sounds like arterial hypotension is not considered to be unique to severe sepsis and septic shock on the continuum, but is considered to be a part of sepsis as well. Do you disagree? If so, I'm still not sure I understand why. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Both severe sepsis and septic shock are types of sepsis. Thus hypotension is part of sepsis. But hypotension is not part of non-severe and non septic shock sepsis. If hypotension is present the person automatically has severe sepsis.
These 2012 guidelines represent the most recent definitions of the condition. More updating of the article is required to match to match these 2012 guidelines. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I just took a look at the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines and similar documents from the IDSA and I think I pinpointed the reason for my confusion. Thanks for clarifying. It was previously unclear to me the way they were presenting the tables that they were using sepsis (and saying arterial hypotension is a part of that) to mean as a general feature of sepsis but really meaning severe sepsis and septic shock only and not including non-severe sepsis (meaning SIRS criteria + source of infection since SIRS criteria does not use hypotension as a diagnostic criterion). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yup :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Follow up question about a different aspect of sepsis-in the article's section about EGDT, it states that EGDT has been shown to decrease mortality. However, looking at more recent literature, there seems to be active debate about this topic with some recent RCTs suggesting otherwise. Since this is about something rather important (mortality in sepsis), do you think it would be reasonable to briefly mention some recent studies have differed in their findings? Or do you think it would be more prudent to wait for a review article to discuss these more recent RCTs. I'm guessing you're familiar with the studies I'm referring to, but if not, it's these: Goal-Directed Resuscitation for Patients with Early Septic Shock
The ARISE Investigators and the ANZICS Clinical Trials Group* and the PROCESS trial. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes am familiar. No one is saying that EGDT is not good. And it has definitely revolutionized the care of sepsis and dramatically improved outcomes. The question now is are all parts of EGDT needed or just some parts. Basically can we achieve the same results with a slightly less aggressive and less expensive version of EGDT. The same is occurring with therapeutic hypothermia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you think this is worth mentioning or that it can wait for a review? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I would imagine that their are reviews on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Another question for you regarding a recent addition I made to the article. I'm conflicted about the definition of sepsis (strictly infectious as stated in various places in the article and in many reviews or open to include noninfectious insults as well as stated by the 2014 immunity review (a rather highly regarded journal with a very solid impact factor and authors from a reputable medical school)). Perhaps state that definitions differ and some sources state it's exclusively infectious in origin while other highly regarded sources employ a broader definition to include infectious and noninfectious causes? What do you think? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The surviving sepsis campaign definition IMO should get the greatest prominence. If their is disagreement this could be detailed in the diagnosis section. What do you think? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, over time I will see if other new reviews from respected journals also use this newer, more inclusive definition of sepsis that was used by the Immunity review. For now, let's keep it consistent and keep it to infectious and if there are differing definitions, we can keep it in the diagnosis section where we have definitions, I agree. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dispute

Spike

Spike has graciously volunteered to mediate our dispute, but she may not be an ideal choice due to her limited vocabulary, reading skills, and the ease with which she is distracted by small rodents. Was wondering if you can suggest an alternative approach. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Likes like a great mediator :-) What amazing eyes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

A Happy Holiday To You

Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness. to Doc James Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks and the same to you :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Olanzapine

I started to add some material to the olanzapine article but thought maybe we are getting into a rut. We could do a RFc on the question of whether the discussion of efficacy in antipsychotic articles should routinely begin with Cochrane's assesment that no one really knows, but the poor turnout on our MEDRS RFc suggests to me that people are getting bored with our disagreement.

I'd be willing to accept Casliber as a third opinion and drop the issue if he says that the Cochrane statements are reasonably close to scientific consensus. Would you be willing to accept his third party judgement? It would be nice to put this to bed and move on. I'm starting to feel like one of those people who edits E Cigarette 18 hours a day. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

So the question being, should Cochrane reviews be mentioned in issues pertaining to psyc meds? We already are having a massive RfC about the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no question that Cochrane reviews should be mentioned if the article is comprehensive. Thing is, what we should be doing is be being faithful to sources. Cochrane reviews are generally pretty frank about what they conclusions they are or are not confident about depending on the data they have drawn, and thus a drug will have this listed, as well as reviews done in different ways. I am a proponent of presenting material warts and all with uncertainties spelled out - e.g. in psych I am a bit sick of facile nuerotransmitter explanations for which there is evidence but still alot of unanswered questions and incongruities. (also that way when there is strong evidence it does stand out) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Cas. Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you @Casliber:. That was not exactly the question I was asking (I never thought we shouldn't mention Cochrane), but whether the Cochrane conclusion that the utility of these drugs in maintenance is unproven should be mentioned as the first and most prominent comment under the efficacy section, as it is in several articles. I think that James has already agreed to my request that we put this conclusion after the practice guideline recommendations (I'm concerned about encouraging non-compliance). Nonetheless, I'd like to hear your opinion and will follow it. Is this consensus in the field?
I also disagree with James's statement that these articles were the main issue behind the RFc, but that's a minor point and I've already conceded defeat on that issue.  :>) Formerly 98 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I am happy with having the conclusions of the guidelines first for these medications. Maybe we were partly talking past each other. Equal weight does not necessarily dictate order of presentation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Formerly 98: aaaah ok, no I agree it shouldn't go first, but more as a counterpoint view further down the page. Plenty of reviews support antipsychotic use and their effectiveness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Virus Disease

I have to admit I was quite surprised to find my edits on the Ebola Virus Disease page removed. This is because 1) my citations were valid and 2) Wikipedia is built for a quick glance, and many Americans trying to learn about the disease need these myths lifted. I stand by my edits on the Ebola Virus page. I would like this issue to go to rest, so if you could contact my talk page directly and tell me what you would like changed, we can perhaps find a compromise. Kieran P. Clark (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kieran, I now see the discussion you referred to on my talk page is taking place here so I'll address your comments here as well though certainly not in place of James' response, this is just what I think about these additions. I do think your edits are well-intentioned and I certainly agree that there are many misconceptions about EVD, but our goal here is to dispel such misconceptions by providing accurate and thorough information sourced to high-quality references that can be used for verification purposes. However, I do not agree with you that your citations are valid-to be more specific, this reference (http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/72460-debunking-ebola-misconceptions) is really not ideal since it appears to be a popular press article and for a topic like this, such references are really not preferred.
Also, as a matter of Wikipedia policy, and I'm not sure if you're new here or not, it's frowned upon to revert reverts of your edits since this leads to edit warring. We generally try to follow the WP:BRD guidelines and discuss contested edits on the article's talk page to work out any disputes or concerns. The reference you used from the WHO is fine, but much of your addition after that sentence was also unsourced and that raises additional concerns. Lastly, phrases such as "The existence of these myths is mainly due to the misinformation of certain news network, as well as anti-Africa stereotypes, misconceptions on the passage of viruses, and general lack of proper information on this virus in general, which is certainly regrettable." sounds like a personal opinion and editorializing and Wikipedia articles are not the proper place for something like that. I look forward to your response (preferably on the article's talk page). James, do you have any thoughts on this topic you would like to discuss? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this ref [40] is poor and should not be used. We are also an encyclopedia and a section called misconception is not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about Infographic

Hi James, do you know how these infographics are made (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease#mediaviewer/File:Symptoms_of_ebola.png)? I'm just wondering so I can make them myself in the future if an article could use one. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I ask User:Mikael Häggström and he makes them :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see, good to know for the future. Thanks =) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you can either ask me, or you can try making one yourself by looking at Commons:Template:Human body diagrams. Good luck Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

BrooklynProf - Thanks for feedback

Hi - Thanks for the feedback for my students. I have lots of them working on this project at once, and it seems the directive about primary vs. secondary sources hasn't penetrated with all of them yet. Two clarifications on that point:

1. I'd generally consider a good meta-analysis as good or better than many reviews, and definitely stronger than other primary sources. I've encouraged them to look for meta-analyses - would you concur?

2. In some cases, there may be strong theoretical reasons to cautiously include brief mention of a primary study. E.g., if epidemiological theory points to a line of inquiry that is only scantily researched to date, so there is no obvious secondary source to use, but there are one or two good primary sources that bear upon that point, I'd suggest including those. This seems to fit what's out there now on Wikipedia. Right?

I'm thrilled to be entering the Wikipedia community, and really grateful for the time you put into it generally as well as specifically with my students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrooklynProf (talk • contribs) 04:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

User:BrooklynProf (1) Yes a meta analysis is a type of review article. I consider them better for some stuff, often; however, they are narrow in scope and other resources are needed to fill in the spaces between
(2) For major topic areas, the question becomes if these primary sources are so strong then why are they not in secondary sources yet? The use of primary sources is fraught with issues. I use them to support less than 1% of my edits.
By the way have you meet with User:Blue Rasberry? He is in the NYC area. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hi Doc James. I noticed your comment here in which you refer to me as involved in the E-cigarette discussion. Could you please review WP:INVOLVED and then put together your evidence (ideally diffs) for this statement, either here or at my talk? If you find you are unable to do this, could you please strike this material? Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) John, you should read what DocJames wrote more carefully, he did not refer to you as involved in the E-cigarette discussion. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Likely we need someone neutral / not involved to look at this. John and QG are involved. I am especially surprised as Doc James is an admin and should be familiar with what WP:INVOLVED says, but let's let him answer for himself. --John (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course he can answer for himself, I was just pointing out your error. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope I did not refer that you were involved with e-cig. I refer that you are involved with QG. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah. And is this opinion based on any evidence? Because if not I will just treat it as an unevidenced burble. As I said, if you do have any good reason for stating this, please state it. --John (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
You are free to do with it whatever you like. I will dig up evidence when needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page. He then immediately blocked me. This appears to be a violation of WP:INVOLVED.

In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. I think this was a violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. I previously explained that any uninvolved admin can sanction the admin John from this topic area at this point. Roxy the dog disagreed with the actions by the admin John. Now the admin John suggests there should further sanctions against both me and Roxy the dog. User:Kww explained John's comment was "problematic".

I was in a content dispute with John. I reverted the original research he added to a BLP. I even explained it to him on John's talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup that first bit was a little over the top. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

References Response

I will do my best to find secondary sources that support the same information. It may take some time though. I will add the citations to the article once I find them. Thank you. Lawler.70 (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Lawler.70. This is a great source from WHO [41]. It could literally be used dozens of times in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Quercetin page

Thank you for bringing to light the inappropriate edits made by students in my course. While their initial confusion between what constitutes a primary versus a secondary source seems to be an honest (yet lazy) mistake, the plagiarism is not acceptable. NeuroJoe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

User:NeuroJoe thanks for dropping me a note. Do you have a class page? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Not for this current course, but they are (supposed to be) following the guidelines of this previous course NeuroJoe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay. This is not one of yours is it [42]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope, not one of my students NeuroJoe (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. They are from Kentucky. City of Lexington. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James -- thanks for your prompt attention to protecting Quercetin. For NeuroJoe -- it seems irresponsible of him (or any teacher) to convey to students that Wikipedia is a suitable forum for submitting course-related test content without paying attention to English grammar, WP:MOS and editor guides on sources like WP:MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

His class is better than many and User:NeuroJoe does keep some eye on them. We do really need to discuss how we are going to address student editing in general.
Thank you Zefr, the students had very detailed instructions to follow, including WP:MEDRS, but failed to do so. Well over a hundred of my previous students have made beneficial improvements to neuroscience stubs in the past and we have not had problems of this significance. While the primary/secondary sourcing problem can be chalked up to laziness, the plagiarism is more worrisome, and will be dealt with internally. They will not be editing the Quercetin page again. My apologies, NeuroJoe (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Zefr and Doc ... late getting home from an evening engagement, but I will have more to say tomorrow on the Med talk page about NeuroJoe's characterization of the problems we've "not" had with his course in the past (and Doc, even if he were "better than many", that's a pretty low bar). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I did not say my students have never had problems; some have made rookie errors in the same vein as other first time editors whom are not part of a university course. I said that we have not had problems of this significance, and that is true. What this group of students did was not acceptable, and I take responsibility for that. The pages that my students have improved in the past have all been neuroscience stubs with little to no beneficial information, and all of those articles now stand in much better shape than they were originally. If the experienced Wikipedia editors choose to demonize all student work, that's certainly your prerogative, but upper level university students usually are very capable editors, if not better than the average Wikipedian editor. Feel free to browse through our previous work before you pass judgement. NeuroJoe (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't know if what you represent is true because a) you have apparently decided to no longer run a course page, making it harder for us to check your students' edits, and b) your students tend to edit on obscure topics, so the problems may be going undetected. Even more so now that your course has essentially "gone underground" (no course page).

Certainly, as to past problems, your students did not understand primary sources when I encountered them in 2011, and my experience with your course led me to resign as FAC delegate to attempt to get some change (unsuccessful) in the Education Program. Your students' involvement forced me to clean up an obscure topic about which there is basically NO secondary review information, period, so I was forced to carefully use their primary sources to fix their work.

So, now, you are openly operating outside of the Education Program, making more work for regular editors (these problems should be dealt with by the paid staff of the Education Program, not us), and making it impossible to know who your students are and which articles they may have damaged with copyvio.

And your statement that "all stand in much better shape" is not because of your students. I had to edit the silly klazomania stub into compliance with policy and guideline, spending inordinate amounts of time trying to correct your student edits on an obscure topic that gets less than 20 page views per day. That article is improved because of MY time, not your students, and my time could have been used more productively elsewhere. And, of course, for all the timme I in good faith invested in mentoring and bringing them up to speed on Wikipedia processes, policies and guidelines (holy cow, see my article edits and the talk page and my talk interaction with them), not a one of them returned or stayed on as Wikipedia editors, which is pretty much 100% true for all student/courses. YOUR course caused me to stop enjoying and stop editing. While you are running a course and had a total of something like four edits in 2013, and now a few in response to this for 2014. You are clearly not an involved professor.

It would be a great assistance to those of us who have to clean up the damage your students leave if you would a) register a course page, to b) work with the paid staff when your student edits need cleaning up, c) identify which other articles your students have edited, and d) engage the project yourself (that is, follow the edits your students make, make sure they are adding a course template on talk, etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The very bare minimum is to have a page, or section on your user page, where all the students have to sign once, and to notify the existence of that to the relevant education and medical project pages. At least that allows their contributions to be found with relatively little difficulty. To do less than that is completely reprehensible. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
And to add my take on the "reprehensible" part in Wiki-speak: to not do that means you and your students should be, IMO, blocked for WP:MEAT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

The follow students have copied and pasted (not from Joes class)
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

SBS Page

I am new to editing Wiki pages. I am a physician researcher in child abuse. I have a particular interest in SBS/AHT. As you know it is an area of great contention. I hope to contribute to the page to ensure it is as accurate and informative as possible.

I appreciate your oversight to any edits I make to the page.

Regards,

Csgreeley (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I appreciate your input/advice. I am a PhD student in Pharmaceutical Sciences and do not assume to have the qualifications to provide medical advice. I am simply updating this stub from a researcher's view point. Please feel free to correct/ contribute to what I have added thus far. Thanks, K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgermany (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Kgermany Thanks for the note. Did you read those pages I left on your talk page? Is your entire class editing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your request

First, I have perused your suggested articles. Second, this article is a work in progress with respect to my contributions. I have been asked to address certain subject matters relating to a class I am attending pertaining to the clinical, commercial, and regulatory aspects of drug design/development. Synthesis is one of them. I appreciate your constructive criticism but i will ask you to refrain from deleting my work. I have put a lot of time into this project and would rather you add to or edit my work rather than simply deleting it. I appreciate contributions to my text/advice pertaining to the use of this forum ,such as what you have recently done,rearranging my sections. I am happy to elucidate my sources, especially when referencing patents, which are valuable sources of information pertaining to the development of new products and indicators of the future of pharmaceuticals. However, I believe it is understood that this website/encyclopedia is not a source of medical advice and therefore should be approached as a free/ all encompassing source of information.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgermany (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks it may be useful for me to touch base with your prof. It would be good for him to understand what sort of sources are expected and what sort of layout we use. I will email you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
To prevent your work from being deleted simply use high quality sources per WP:MEDRS and always remember to paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

response

Yes:) All of us are editing a page but more from the perspective of drug development then medical advice/ information. That's why you will more information pertaining to physical chemistry, patents etc. than usual. We have been told that certain sources are alright to use, including patents....however, we have not been edified as to the correct referencing of said sources, specifically clearly stating that such sources are works in progress and have not been peer-reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgermany (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Who has told you patents are okay to claim a medication is useful for something? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

students copying

What exactly do you mean students are copying information? I would to aware of the specifics of this issue that I may avoid it and provide advice to my classmates, the ones you cited, as to the avoidance of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgermany (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not see issues with your work and your classmates with whom I found issues are aware. Do you have an on Wikipedia course page? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

email etc.

OK, no one has told me that a patent is an appropriate source of medical uses...rather I made a rookie mistake referencing said source and as you can see I fixed it. Thanks for the heads up. I will notify my professor of your request. I will make him aware of your view point, comments, and request to discuss this forum with him. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgermany (talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No Sir, not that I am aware of. Kgermany — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. He would do well to review our guidelines too. Would be happy to speak with him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Kgermany, the English Wikipedia considers a patent to be a lousy source for just about anything. See WP:PATENTS for more details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Benactyzine

Doc James,

It was unfair of you to remove my post on the drug Benactyzine. My comment about its physical relaxant activities was not copied and pasted. They were words from my own mouth. I cited the source from which i gleaned the information from. I would sincerely hope you do not remove my posts from this point forward.

Gmoney61 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmoney61 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Let look at your edits.[43] You added:
"Certain muscarinic antagonists (e.g., atropine, aprophen, and benactyzine) are used as antidotes for the treatment of organophosphate poisoning. ... The interaction of aprophen and benactyzine, both aromatic esters of diethylaminoethanol, with nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR) in BC3H-1 intact muscle cells and with receptor-enriched membranes of Torpedo californica /was examined/. Aprophen and benactyzine diminish the maximal carbamylcholine-elicited sodium influx into muscle cells without shifting Kact (carbamylcholine concentration eliciting 50% of the maximal 22Na+ influx). The concentration dependence for the inhibition of the initial rate of 22Na+ influx by aprophen and benactyzine occurs at lower concentrations (Kant = 3 and 50 microM, respectively) than those needed to inhibit the initial rate of [125I]-alpha-bungarotoxin binding to the agonist/antagonist sites of the AChR (Kp = 83 and 800 uM, respectively). The effective concentration for atropine inhibition of AChR response (Kant = 150 microM in BC3H-1 cells) is significantly higher than those obtained for aprophen and benactyzine. Both aprophen and benactyzine interact with the AChR in its desensitized state in BC3H-1 cells without further enhancing agonist affinity. Furthermore, these ligands do not alter the value of Kdes (equilibrium concentration of agonist which diminishes 50% of the maximal receptor response) in BC3H-1 muscle cells. The affinity of aprophen and benactyzine for the allosterically coupled noncompetitive inhibitor site of the AChR in Torpedo was determined using [3H]phencyclidine as a probe. Both compounds were found to preferentially associate with the high affinity (desensitized) state rather than the resting state of Torpedo AChR. There is a 14- to 23-fold increase in the affinity of aprophen and benactyzine for the AChR (KD = 0.7 and 28.0 uM in the desensitized state compared to 16.4 and 384 uM in the resting state, respectively). These data indicate that aprophen and benactyzine binding are allosterically regulated by the agonist sites of Torpedo AChR. Thus, aprophen and benactyzine are effective noncompetitive inhibitors of the AChR at concentrations of 1-50 uM, in either Torpedo or mammalian AChR. These concentrations correspond very well with the blood level of these drugs found in vivo to produce a therapeutic response against organophosphate poisoning"

ref says

"Certain muscarinic antagonists (e.g., atropine, aprophen, and benactyzine) are used as antidotes for the treatment of organophosphate poisoning. We have studied the interaction of aprophen and benactyzine, both aromatic esters of diethylaminoethanol, with nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR) in BC3H-1 intact muscle cells and with receptor-enriched membranes of Torpedo californica. Aprophen and benactyzine diminish the maximal carbamylcholine-elicited sodium influx into muscle cells without shifting Kact (carbamylcholine concentration eliciting 50% of the maximal 22Na+ influx). The concentration dependence for the inhibition of the initial rate of 22Na+ influx by aprophen and benactyzine occurs at lower concentrations (Kant = 3 and 50 microM, respectively) than those needed to inhibit the initial rate of [125I]-alpha-bungarotoxin binding to the agonist/antagonist sites of the AChR (Kp = 83 and 800 microM, respectively). The effective concentration for atropine inhibition of AChR response (Kant = 150 microM in BC3H-1 cells) is significantly higher than those obtained for aprophen and benactyzine. Both aprophen and benactyzine interact with the AChR in its desensitized state in BC3H-1 cells without further enhancing agonist affinity. Furthermore, these ligands do not alter the value of Kdes (equilibrium concentration of agonist which diminishes 50% of the maximal receptor response) in BC3H-1 muscle cells. The affinity of aprophen and benactyzine for the allosterically coupled noncompetitive inhibitor site of the AChR in Torpedo was determined using [3H]phencyclidine as a probe. Both compounds were found to preferentially associate with the high affinity (desensitized) state rather than the resting state of Torpedo AChR. There is a 14- to 23-fold increase in the affinity of aprophen and benactyzine for the AChR (KD = 0.7 and 28.0 microM in the desensitized state compared to 16.4 and 384 microM in the resting state, respectively). These data indicate that aprophen and benactyzine binding are allosterically regulated by the agonist sites of Torpedo AChR. Thus, aprophen and benactyzine are effective noncompetitive inhibitors of the AChR at concentrations of 1-50 microM, in either Torpedo or mammalian AChR. These concentrations correspond very well with the blood level of these drugs found in vivo to produce a therapeutic response against organophosphate poisoning.
Basically you have copied and pasted the abstract of the article into Wikipedia [44] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I see that you have seen the warning on your talk page. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Talking

saw the 3RR warning and then the reversal on my Talk page. Thanks for both actions. Let's do stop editing the article and try to talk this out, either at the Talk:Oseltamivir or at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Oseltamivir_.28Tamiflu.29_--_advice_of_major_medical_bodies_vs_EBM. This is exactly the vector where I really think you are leading us astray, so this is a bigger issue being worked out in a concrete situation, which has its good aspects and bad aspects. :) Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

and btw, I respect your leadership and all your hard work and time very much. I am asking you to rethink how you are deploying EBM compared to statements by major medical & scientific bodies. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes we disagree and the opinion about "leading astray" is mutual
When there is a controversy we should neutrally present the different major positions without additional puffery.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

barbiturates?

You have reverted my edit, with the

Never mind! I see you have restored my copyedit. Maproom (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was the edit before yours. Apologies for the confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oseltamavir

You know Doc, I always respect you and 99% of the time I even like you (which I'm sure brings you infinite peace of mind). But I really think the Oseltamavir conversation lost its way last night in a way that does not reflect the best of Wikipedia. You were making edits to adjust POV so fast that you introduced factual errors (the meta analysis of meta analyses found no evidence of benefit, not evidence of no benefit, and the CDC responded to the Cochrane analysis, not to the meta analysis of meta analyses) and either you or someone else scrambled citations. It was edit warring plain and simple, with no one really engaged in a collaborative effort to take the wisdom from multiple viewpoints and synthesize a deeper understanding of the issues. You obviously were not the only one, but then you're supposed to be leading by example due to your role, at least from my pov.

As for how to write the article so that it is more understandable, I think the answer to that is to emotionally disengage. The story seems to me to be a simple one. Roche undertook a development program that was designed to maximize profits by gaining extensive use of the drug for prophylaxis and commonplace mild influenza infections. Most but not all who have looked closely at the data think that it has an unfavorable risk/benefit ratio to use in this way or think that it should be held in reserve to minimize resistance development. There is some controversy regarding its utility for prophylaxis in high risk people and for treatment of hospitalized patients, in large part because Roche did not do the trials in a way that would effectively answer those questions, or perhaps even ran them in a way designed to obscure them. Most favor using it in these latter applications, but the evidence is not all that solid. The differences in many ways boil down to how usable data from observational trials is, and whether ITT or ITTI is the appropriate patient population to look at. Nobody thinks its a great drug, its a debate about whether it is mediocre or worthless, and the answer is likely somewhere in between.

Isn't that what the article would read as if it were written in the way you so often counsel, for the average reader who is not a medical expert (and who probably doesn't know or care who Cochrane or the IDSA are)? I enjoy a lively debate (I've said many times I almost never learn anything from people who agree with me, and so I've learned more from you than most :>)), but yesterday evening wasn't that.

I'm sure that you don't feel that my behavior was ideal either. I'll stipulate to that. Best Formerly 98 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Formerly 98 glad to hear the respect is mutual. My main effort was to switch the efficacy section from one section to three. Do you see an intrinsic problem with that? Currently it more or less says what you summarize above does it not? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Codeine and essential medicine status

Hey James. I noticed codeine had the WHO essential medicine list status in the lead. I also noticed this concept was not the body, and if I remember correctly, you added this sort of info to the leads of many pharmaceutical articles. To me, I don't know of any reason to include something in the lead if it's not in the body, and I am not certain this status deserves to be placed in the lead itself. Any thoughts about this? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Biosthmors I see this as a key piece of global information and thus belonging in the lead. We are often too US centric. It should also be in the body. Please also add it there if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

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 asked for uninvolved admins to join the existing discussion at WP:ENI. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 03:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We already have a few uninvolved admins. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I have quick question. I was reading the noticeboard on my blocking incident, I was wondering if you could explain to me the difference between the plagiarism and copyright violation. I do acknowledge that I was careless in adding information to wikipedia but that was because I was just completely unaware of how to do things here plus this is my first year in college so I'm still trying to learn how write and cite on the college level. In regards to accessing my sources, they are valid but I did attain them through my university, so that is why they were not accessible to the public. Also the block did help because it forced me to look at mistakes, something that I wouldn't have done because I'm trying to find the time to complete other projects as well. But it was harsh because I might face a lot of repercussions for things that I still don't completely understand and I'd rather not feel like a criminal if I did not intend to do anything wrong:/ . My biggest mistake was thinking that copying and pasting was okay even if I included citations (which I did but I cited it in MLA format) I would hope in the future that I (and other students) especially during this time of year could have access to one wikipedia page specifically geared to college students that defines the plagiarism and copyright violation assuming that we don't know best because I know that I can miss small but important details while I am on a time constraint. In this case it would have been quotation marks. For example, all the resources you pointed out to me and the simple steps you gave me we great! I just want to enable other students to see that with a one page reference that has all the basic information or links to this information. Overall thank you for your help and I understand your frustration, I can't testify for the motives of other students but I can for my own. In any case that you or any other admins would like to do this, I would love to help after finals:) Esth270 (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Esth270: Hi, Esth270. We do have an online student training that reviews a lot of the plagiarism and copyright violation details, and we request that instructors assign this as homework early in the term. I am sorry you didn't get the chance to review these policies outside of your initial Wikipedia training, and this is a great reminder that we need to push it to instructors to ensure that more students who are eager to make a positive contribution have a chance to do so. Thank you for engaging here to learn more about editing policies, and I hope this was a learning opportunity about how plagiarism works and why it's so important to avoid it. Hope to see you continue editing after your class. Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The difference between copyright violation and plagiarism is not really important. If you alway put everything in your own word and do not ever either "copy or paste" or even use quotes which are a borderline case you will not have issues.
You have sort of been pulled into an issue not of your own making. You are not the first or only student who is having issue with this and this is not the first year we have had issues. If only one student had issues we of course could "blame" them. However, with many students having problems it is more of a system issue. Basically either your assignment is not appropriate, you have not been given sufficient instruction, or this whole effort has not been provided with sufficient oversight.
Agree it is tough for you caught in the middle. Best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

QUestion

Maddox, T. (2007). Peabody developmental motor scales. In Encyclopedia of special education: A reference for the education of children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities and other exceptional individuals. Retrieved from http://proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/login?url=/login?qurl=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/wileyse/peabody_developmental_motor_scales/0 this is the APA style citation that has been left for the students to use on the database, it has no date or page number so i wouldn't know how to fill in those two sections. As for the URL i had removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatnyc (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to use Wikipedia's formating style not your schools formatting style. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
More precisely, you need to use whatever formatting style is in that article, which may well be APA. Every single article is entitled to have its own citation style, and APA is one of the more popular ones here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It used cite template before the students started [45] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for the feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllenvanderVeen (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we have it enabled on all pages for test? — Revi 08:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:-revi I have made the request of User:Eran the main programmer. I am checking bandwidth and server capacity at our partner Turnitin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Labs provides server resource and database replica for free. Why not using them? — Revi 08:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I didn't checked the link :p — Revi 08:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Yup we just need to make sure they provide the power the bot needs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

EFT

Thanks for this link - I bet you spotted that it's written by someone with a vested interest. As, indeed, is pretty much everything supportive of "energy psychology". Guy (Help!) 14:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no real position about this and have not looked into it in any detail. But yes there are concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

List of people who have undergone electroconvulsive therapy

Your removing Ted Chabasinski and Linda Andre is a mistake. They are well known anti-ECT advocates. I will find references for them and rewrite them back in.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP policy comments about people must have refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Endorsement for Development of Offline Sync

Hi James,

We have spoken a few times by email regarding WikEM and we would like to contribute our offline sync capability back to the MediaWiki Community. We have proposed a grant here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Offline_MediaWiki_search_for_NASA_and_Medicine#Resources

Initially we would like to take the offline sync and develop it into a robust extension with first implementation with NASA's EVA mediawiki installation. Then we will develop a mobile framework similar to the current WikEM app that will allow any user of a mediawiki installation the ability to create an offline version of their wiki and have a mobile app to accompany the wiki. This extension will hopefully also be useful for the wikipedia as well especially.

If you think this is a good idea we would appreciate your endorsement. -Dan Ostermayer dan@wikem.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.175.186.113 (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead VS Background?

Hi! Sorry to disturb.

On the Ebola page, I saw most part of the lead was transferred to a new-launched "Background" section. But, I think the lead itself is the background, right? I did check the talk page there but nothing about this issue was found. Is this organization method applicable to all other disease related articles? Any specific reason for this act? Thank you! Biomedicinal (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, agree and restoring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Epidemiology

Sorry James, I can see that annoyed you, but the statement about it having the 7th highest "fatality rate" was simply wrong (and certainly not expressed that way in WCR 2014). When I started that talk-page section I thought that would be the only point I needed to raise, but then I found another two in the same section. I still think the sentence about the PanNETs found in autopsy studies (an interesting and pertinent epidemiological observation, imo) is somewhat unclear. Obviously I'm not looking to trouble John or anyone else in any way. Best, 109.158.8.201 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No I agree it was wrongly worded. Not annoyed. It was previously correct. Not sure what happened were. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks James. Lol, an example (imo) of how tricky these forum dialogues can be... After the recent FAC incident where I got harangued for making changes to the article itself (as well as for contributing to the FAC page), I thought I'd better raise my concerns on the article talk page rather then editing the page directly. Then the gf communication ends up getting kind of complicated... the opposite of what we all want. Ah well, 109.158.8.201 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Re:References

Hi Doc James, I don't believe menstruation is the only cause of constipation, of course not, but it is one of the causes. I opened a discussion on the talk page so we can discuss it. I agree the quality of the references are not the best, but they still meet the rs criteria, no?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Not of your refs are sufficient. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I have never seen it listed as a cause. If you find a high quality secondary source I will be supportive of adding it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Backwardscopy

You might like to take a look at my comment to your question at Template talk:Backwardscopy#We need backwardscopy to handle many sources copying from us. As the category already exists, tt should be a fairly easy bot task to create as the regular expression is relatively easy to write. -- PBS (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I've raised a question about you here as it appears that you are engaging in edit warring at Electronic cigarette.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
To James, a true machine when it comes to Wikipedia! :) Manum56 (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Manu :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinion please

Hi James. Please have a look at the talk sections Zoonosis(removing sections) and Wildlife Disease(merging with Zoonosis). Your advice and help would be much appreciated. Manum56 (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Merging is a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio bot

Doc, I haven't kept up with the discussion of the copyvio bot. Where would we go for individual requests for checks? [46] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Does not check individual edits. But this one should have been run as it was a change to a medical article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
In other words, I can assume medical articles are checked? Is that anything tagged with WP:MED on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes any page with either WP:PHARM or WP:MED. The checking tool however is not perfect and that class has been copy and pasting in the paste. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Follow up needed

140.32.16.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) copyright concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

Diabetes breakthrough!

I'm sure you'll be as pleased as I am to hear that after decades of sulfonylureas, glitazones, and DPPIV inhibitors, my industry has finally succeeded in developing a diabetes drug with absolutely no side effects.

Seriously though, the article appears to be written by a Zydus employee, as evidenced by the somewhat promotional tone of the article as well as the specific calling out of this drug (which is not widely discussed in the literature, at least not yet) in some of our general diabetes articles. I've tagged the article and have started tracking down these call outs (its hard to do because the drug is in the diabetes template, and so the "links here" list is crowded), but aside from this I don't know how this is usually handled.

Best, Formerly 98 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User has been blocked for copyright issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Aphasia article improvements

Hi Doc James; My recent plans were to do another set of improvements to Aphasia which I had started last May. Could you give me the short form version of the current page protection there and if there are any concerns. I would like to make some incremental improvements to keep nudging the article closer to peer review quality. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Was protected due to copyright issues. You should be able to edit it though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
After your comment, I did bring in the new aphasia material which I was planning to bring in making the link from aphasia to dyslexia. Two issued did arise though while doing this just to let you know. First that alexia and dyslexia are being maintained as separate articles on Wikipedia which I am not sure is ultimately helpful to Wikipedia as a whole. The distinction of limiting these terms by selectively calling one "developmental" does not always work consistently. The other issue is that of the quality of the aphasia article itself which, to my reading, does not look like it can in a practical sense be nudged or developed into a peer review quality article in its current form. If you have some thoughts on how to possibly start re-organizing the structure or outline of the aphasia article with an eye towards making it peer review quality, then I could offer to do the actual legwork for this based on a outline which you think would have more of a chance to become peer reviewed. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Drugs

There is a fundamental problem here in that you are confused about what a drug is. I am bringing it here so it isn't scattered all over Wikipedia, but it needs to be resolved because it's contributing to the problems on the article. A syringe is not a drug. A cup is not a drug. An e-cig is not a drug. Can we agree on this? If not, please explain exactly why a syringe is not a drug but an e-cig is.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of drug is a drug
A atomizer full of drug is a drug
A syringe full of drug is a drug
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
No, that's incorrect. However let's overlook that for the moment. Do you believe that an empty atomizer is a drug?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
An e-cig is not an empty atomizer. A coffee is not an empty coffee cup. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
So you believe that my e-cig ceases to be an e-cig when the tank is empty? What do you think it becomes?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes when you have a cup of coffee and drink it you than have a cup
When you empty an e-cig you have an atomizer
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
So you believe that when I fill it with liquid it becomes an e-cig, and when the tank runs dry it becomes an atomizer and mod?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If you fill it with hash oil or with water it is not an "e-cig" as discussed in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. So what happens if I fill it with nicotine-free e-liquid? Do you think it becomes an e-cig then?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes that is an interesting question as the Cochrane paper user "nicotine-free e-liquid" as the control when they looked at these things as a smoking aid.
This is like asking is sham acupuncture acupuncture? These are controls. Thus my position is no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. So you don't believe that nicotine-free e-cigs exist?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll rephrase that. You said "These are controls." Does that mean you think nicotine-free liquids are only used as experimental controls, and not by vapers?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is about e-cigs, whether they contain nicotine or not. Do you agree that nicotine-free liquids do exist and are used by vapers? Or do you think they're only controls?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not what the article on Wikipedia is primarily about as this is not how 99% of the sources use the term. And this is not the version nearly all are using. If all e-cigs were nicotine free there would not be these issues. Some e-cigs that claim to be nicotine free are not [47] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Again: The article is about e-cigs, whether they contain nicotine or not. Do you acknowledge the fact that nicotine-free liquid exists and is used by vapers?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
What's this, Doc?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
Nicotine-free e-liquid
Looks like a bottle that claims to be nicotine free but their is a good chance it isn't.
With respect to true nicotine free use, it makes up such a small proportion of the article it doesn't matter Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it matters. Do you believe that if I fill my e-cig tank with 0mg liquid it stops being an e-cig? As for whether or not the liquid is actually nicotine-free, I can assure you that it is.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It is different than what 99% of the article is about. This is called WP:DUE weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is about e-cigs, whether they contain nicotine or not. Is it still your position that an e-cig filled with nicotine-free liquid is not an e-cig?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 06:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
99% of the article is about e-cigs that contain nicotine and less than 1% is about those that don't. The article is written with the assumption that when e-cigs are mentioned it is ones that contain nicotine unless it is specifically stated otherwise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The article states in several places that not all e-cigs contain nicotine. Any Gen 2 or 3 e-cig can be switched between nicotine-containing and nicotine-free liquid in ten minutes, or if you have a spare atomizer in ten seconds. However that is not what I asked you. Earlier you said your position is that an e-cig filled with nicotine-free liquid is not an e-cig. Is this still your position?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 06:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I oppose your attempts to give the article undue weight. We do not base articles on the few exceptions that are present.
The article on Wikipedia is primarily about the ones with nicotine not the ones without. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is about e-cigs, whether they contain nicotine or not. There are not "nicotine-free" and "nicotine-containing" e-cigs; there are nicotine-free and nicotine-containing liquids. The devices themselves are identical and, except for disposables, can be switched between either type of liquid with no modification at all. However yet again you are not answering the question, choosing instead to object to a proposal I did not in fact make. Is it still your position that an e-cig filled with nicotine-free liquid is not actually an e-cig?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 06:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If there is even a small percentage of items in a product line that is nicotine free - then our article should not attempt to present it as ALL these items have nicotine. That is a falsehood. Often referred to as a lie of omission (if memory serves). All sides of a subject should be presented in our articles, and this can be done without adding undue weight. Just my two cents. — Ched :  ?  06:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks User:Ched. I agree. If 1% of the literature is about e-cigs without nicotine and 99% is about e-cigs with nicotine than the later as we would all agree should get greater weight.
What I am opposing is the suggestion that we should write / rewrite the article so that it revolves around the concept that e-cigs do not contain nicotine and thus are not a drug when 99% of the time they are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
That's lovely, but it isn't a suggestion anyone has actually made so I'm not sure why you're opposing it. Meanwhile my Nemesis/Taifun combination is currently filled with 0mg liquid. Is it an e-cig today, or not?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 06:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but what I'm trying to find out is if Doc James really believes that an e-cig filled with 0mg liquid is not in fact an e-cig.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 06:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
And I have answered with respect to the subject at hand "The article on Wikipedia is primarily about the ones with nicotine not the ones without." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You answered a question I didn't ask and am not interested in. Is an e-cig filled with nicotine-free liquid an e-cig, or not? Earlier you said it isn't. Is that still your position?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 06:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
While if you really want to get technical we should be using the term "electronic nicotine delivery systems" not e-cig. We have been using the later as a reasonable approximation of the form.
The "nicotine-free" content can and should get a very small weight as it is uncommon. So should the use of cannabis, methamphetamine, powdered cocaine, and synthetic drugs like bath salts in these atomizers.[48] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
So the question is is an en e-cig without nicotine an e-cig? It is not a "electronic nicotine delivery systems". So the answer is with respect to the article partly. Same as sham acupuncture is sort of acupuncture but sort of not. This is a grey answer as the answer is "it depends" on the context. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Nobody says "ENDS" anyway except anti-THR advocates, and they don't get to decide what my stuff is called. However that's irrelevant. Right now my e-cig is filled with 0mg liquid. So is it still "a drug, similar to caffeine"?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 06:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes no one but the World Health Organization, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, government of New Zealand, World Medical Association and Action on Smoking & Health among many many others. All of them anti-THR advocates (otherwise known as those who do not support the e-cig lobby by the looks of it [49]) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The correct names are "electronic cigarette" or "personal vapouriser". The WHO, CDC etc. don't get to decide what they're called; we do, and it isn't ENDS. Anyway thanks for a frustrating, but illuminating, discussion.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I really tried to stay out of this but I can't. Doc James, why don't you go on the Tobacco pipe article and spend as much time as you want there to convince the contributors of the article that the subject should be treated as a drug delivery device and that a extensive health section should come up first in the article, and then you should really really take your time to write the health section.... You should be livid about the Tobacco pipe article as there is no mention whatsoever about the hazardous effects that these devices can have when used as intended. They don't even have a nicotine free option.... Unless you use them to smoke weed... Which in turn is unequivocally a drug TheNorlo (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

And let me add something else.... The drug part of ecigs are e-liquids, feel free to start a new page called E-Liquid and then talk extensively about the health hazards of inhaling juice fumes. I would not object to see a health section appearing first in the e-liquid article. TheNorlo (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If that's what he believes about e-cigs he's not WP:COMPETENT to edit the article. His beliefs about how e-cigs only become e-cigs when filled are beyond weird.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys, this argument is silly, it's just a definition issue. Doc, you seem to be looking at e-cigs/ENDS as a whole package (battery, carto, atomiser, wick and juice all together). For most users, and in most papers I've read, the e-cig is defined separately from the juice. The e-cig is the device when the tank/carto/atty/clearo is mounted onto a PV/Battery. This device is then filled with a liquid to be vaporised. Usually this liquid contains nicotine and that nicotine forms the purpose of the device however that nicotine is not the device. Nicotine is the drug and e-cigarette is a drug delivery system that, in 5-30% (range of figures I've seen would add more sourcing for article use) of users is sometimes used without any intentional drug intake. Nobody thinks the article should focus on anything other than e-cigs as they are currently used, almost entirely as nicotine delivery devices. So why are either of you arguing? SPACKlick (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Refs

Ok, should I discuss refs on talk page?

JohnPRsrcher (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply to your message re: Vestibular Schwannoma page

Doc James left a message on your talk page in "Copy and pasting". Do you have permission to release this under an open license? Doc James (talk ·

Hi Doc James,

I am employed by the Acoustic Neuroma Association, the organization that publishes the information booklets used as source material for this entry. I worked with ANA's CEO and Board of Directors to edit and update the existing Vestibular Schwannoma entry. Our organization felt that the entry had some incorrect information, but also needed more detail. I updated it using material from ANA's information booklets and the ANA website to bring it to its current state. Please let me know if you need information from either the CEO or Board to back up any statements. I have included my personal contact information below if you want to discuss further.

Melissa Baumbick

Melissa Baumbick Communications Specialist Acoustic Neuroma Association e-mail: communications@ANAUSA.org website: www.ANAUSA.org phone: 678-993-6724 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANAssociation (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I assumed this was the case. I will send you an email requesting release of this content under a CC BY SA license and you need to reply back that you agree to this release. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Dichloroacetic acid

We have an IP editor from Toronto attempting to edit war in case reports regarding dichloroacetic acid as a miracle cure for cancer. There are two IP addresses involved, both in the same neighborhood of Toronto, so I assume a single individual.

Diff here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dichloroacetic_acid&diff=639223781&oldid=639221264

IP addresses Geolocate

70.50.194.14: http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/70.50.194.14

173.35.66.225: http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/173.35.66.225

Could you fire a warning shot over their bow?

Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected the article for a month. IPs need to discuss suggestions on the talk page. Let WPMED now if you need someone to look into things in further detail. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This article was a nightmare of primary research citations, animal and in vitro studies. Unable to identify high quality secondary sources for any of this (most or all of the clinical research is from a single researcher), I took a meat axe to the article and deleted 2/3s of the text. I suspect that we'll have a good edit war over this when protection expires. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Congradulations

TheNorlo (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Why were my 'verifiable' edits deleted?

I am wondering why my edits were deleted even though I included a verifiable reference (detailed academic citation that anyone can look up), to back my edits. Nandinik (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Because you copied and pasted from the sources.
Ref says "Some clients who had originally met a minimum of five of the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for BPD no longer did so upon engaging in mindfulness-based treatment." http://sw.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/28/sw.swu030]
You added "Some clients who had originally met a minimum of five of the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for BPD no longer did so upon engaging in mindfulness-based treatment" Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The two sentences you quote are identical, and I cite the original reference. Is it better to modify the sentence from the original source? Is that what you are suggesting? Please let me know. Thank you Nandinik (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please have a look for me?

Dear James, can you have a look at the Relapsing polychondritis wiki page. I am not satisfied with the reference list on the bottom. Would you have any suggestions? I would like to add more references to it, but first I would like to fix this problem so that I won't repeat it. Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Ellen EllenvanderVeen (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC) 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EllenvanderVeen (talk • contribs) 22:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Breaking of Wikipedia Policy, Must Gain clear consensus on talk page for edits to page

Hi,

I'm notifying you since now you have changed edits that I have made on page numerous times now without gaining consensus on the talk page. Please do not change the page without first bringing up the issue on the talk page. This involves all edits, big or small. According to wikipedia policy you must gain consensus for edits, this includes edits that other people have gained consensus for.

JohnPRsrcher (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Posted here [50] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you James for helping me on the Relapsing Polychondritis, it is much appreciated. I will change the 'patient' and add some more references in the way you did after christmas. Have a nice holiday! bye bye EllenvanderVeen (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllenvanderVeen (talk • contribs) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. See you in the new year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Have a nice christmas! EllenvanderVeen (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked around a bit because I was sure there had been an RFC about paid editing, and I found Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing. I'm not sure if that's the most recent one, as it's from 2009, but it's an interesting read (particularly Jimbo's stance). I'm following your AN/I thread, but I don't think there's every been community consensus to do anything about paid editing. We have WP:PAY and a lot of advice about dealing with COIs, but any policy proposed has been shot down. Paid editing also appears in Wikipedia:Perennial proposals with a short summary of what's been said and done. I suppose my thoughts on it are similar to my thoughts about educational projects: it's going to happen whether we condone it or not, so we might as well work to ensure it's happening in a manner in which we can examine it. There is a lot of other overlap between paid editing and editing for a grade. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing is more of an issues as it is promotional
The editing for a grade is more of an issue because of copyright infringement
Yes it is unclear whether the community has the desire or ability to deal with either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of unpaid editing is promotional too. Looked at in the right light almost everything is promotional. You're taking a very narrow focus. If an article meets N and NPOV standards then it doesn't matter if it's paid or not, does it?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Autism talk

Quit Wiki because of you, and I don't want to fight again. With little time to spare, you'll get your way. Please facilitate my editing with research reviews and suggestions where possible. To save you time... [[51]]32cllou (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey User:32cllou No strong interest in autism. As long as you are using recent high quality secondary sources (such as review articles from major medical journals) and properly paraphrasing them I am happy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
See the one new sentence and it's source. I just found that you're not the editor who removed the qualification of SSRI's efficacy in MDD (stating they are only moderately effective relative to other techniques IF the placebo effect is ~frozen). I think that qualifier (in the PLUS review conclusion) is a key clue to understanding depression mechanisms and potential treatment modalities. But, then I still feel you sent a couple editors to harass me in Daniel Fast. I will go slowly this time. Back from the University with 8 very recent reviews. PS, I gave up on chronotherapeutics after being told by a clinician "nobody will have time for that". The basics are in Depression, and only an idiot wouldn't try to combine strategies. Know that I'm here to try to help people with the latest highest quality facts.32cllou (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Daniel Fast? I have never edited the article... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: My edits

Thank you. I will re-word and enter the edits so that copyrights are not violated. Nandinik (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There are still issues with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please let me know what those issues are so I can remedy them? Thanks! Nandinik (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Have started the discussion here [52] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi there, I have made some updates to the phrasing as well as strengthened the references. Thanks! Nandinik (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Low Carb Diet research page

I noticed you reverted my edits on the LC diet research page, due to an issue with the page I linked to. I'm wondering what, exactly, that issue is, and how is that page any different than the kinds of pages linked to on the main Low Carb Diet page?

The page I linked contains links to an summaries of numerous studies done comparing LCHF diet. How is that not appropriate?A low-carb high fat dieter (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a spam website [53] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


— Revi is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— Revi 04:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The same to you :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just now I had changed the link that you had included in your proposal,[54] previous link redirected to the block action and not the block log. Noteswork (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Airborne

I have a back and forth with an editor over at the Airborne article which mainly consists of deletion of some material stating that there never was any evidence for the efficacy of the product. The source for the statement that there never was any evidence is non-MEDRS, but its complicated because there are no MEDRS sources describing the product. Could you drop in over there and weigh in on whether a) I am being excessively harsh, or b) I am dealing appropriately with someone who may have a COI? Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean Airborne (dietary supplement). Will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Sanitation

wiki love

James, you're not just a gf contributor... you're a vvgf contributor. Kudos!

And best wishes, 109.158.8.201 (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and merry X-mas Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The injurious of anemia tongue

If you recognize the image at the bottom of the page ... Not only do they not give attribution, but they also use the image as a illustration of something it clearly is not ... Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes seen tons of pages like this. A lot of them are just spam. If you do a google image search you can find 100s of pages with this image. I only write to those sources that are reliable and using the content without appropriate licensing :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

move

Can you move Nut rage to Draft:Macadamia nuts controversy? (You will have to delete redirect to move it back.) It is not ready for mainspace. — Revi 04:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, please suppress the redirect when moving. — Revi 04:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Have moved to Macadamia nuts controversy and deleted the draft. What is wrong with it in main space? Maybe merge with Korean Air? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
No merge or such, just I'm not satisfied with the quality yet. — Revi 11:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to move it further. I have now deleted so you can. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you :) — Revi 11:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"Tentative evidence" (re: edits in Cough#Treatment)

You changed my edits from "A 2012 Cochrane systematic review" to "There is tentative evidence...". I changed it back, and then you reverted my change.

Before making any further edits, I would like to know this: why are you referring to the review as "tentative"? I couldn't find any Wikipedia policy that defines different categories of evidence with one of them being "tentative evidence" (is there such a policy?). Thus, I'm guessing that you're using "tentative evidence" based on a personal writing preference (which isn't necessarily an issue).

Based on your edit comments I'm assuming you chose the word "tentative" because the conclusion uses uncertain-sounding language (i.e., may be). However, I think using this word isn't the best way to describe such evidence. Scientific findings are commonly surrounded by uncertain-sounding language because science is inherently uncertain. If by "tentative" you mean "uncertain", then almost every single study, systematic review, meta-analysis, etc. should be labeled as "tentative evidence." This is redundant, though, because scientific findings *are* inherently tentative and uncertain; they're always subject to being overturned by better evidence and is never truly "finalized".

"Tentative evidence", as you have used it here, implies that the cited research is unfinished, in a draft state, preliminary, still hypothetical, or otherwise unfinished. However, that's clearly not the case. Just because a study's conclusion states "X *may be* related to Y" doesn't mean the study itself is in a tentative state. If the study is done, reviewed, and published, then it is *just* evidence. Limited evidence, yes. Tentative evidence, though? No.

If you're trying to emphasize the limitations of the review without being too descriptive (as I was), I'd recommend using "there is some evidence" or "there is limited evidence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp4gs (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: looks like that Cochrane review was updated on December 23, 2014 to include an additional RCT comparing honey to a placebo: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007094.pub4/abstractJp4gs (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The review states "There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey." Thus the "tentative" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your undoing without explanation

You've just undone without any explanation my bringing a few scientific references about sensitivity in the paragraph "Adverse effects of circumcision". This seems to be a beginning of edit warring. Why do you behave in such an unfriendly way? Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. We typically only use high quality secondary sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A hand with MEDRS on Cucurbita

Hi, a team of us (HalfGig, Sminthopsis84 and me) have brought Cucurbita pretty much to FAC readiness but we think the short section on the medicinal effects of this genus of food plants could do with being scanned by an expert; and in particular, we would like someone who knows what they're doing to check if there's any decent evidence of usable drug effects: we actually expect the answer No, but don't know how to present that belief (I suspect it might be in the form of a 'failed' search on one or two databases). Do you know someone who could give us a hand? Zad68 offered a month or two ago but has been too busy to help; I'm aware of the pressures on your time but suspect you know people who might be able to do the job. With many thanks in advance, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks better Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, did you help on the electrolysis of water article? Lucasjohansson (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Does not appear to be anything medical there? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Doc James!

Happy New Year!

Doc James,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 06:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

coughing

Hi Doc James, as currently heavily coughing myself, I looked into Dutch and English Wikipedia articles. I severely missed info about the various coughing types and medicines. Not being a doctor, I have trouble finding scientific peerreviewed references, but in Dutch sources I have found differences between antitussives and expectorants and their indications for use. Could you please help and search a better reference, then reverting my addition because you think the source is no good. It appears true to me, I found various sources in Dutch. It would be of interest to sufferers and visiting the article on Cough medicine, Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

While these are commonly used the evidence to support their use is poor / non existent.
Best avaliable ref is probably this one [56] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it is really funny this, I found a Dutch review not advising these subtances, but my MD says I should use it :-). I will put the first in the article, but will do the second myself... as a placebo perhaps. The feeling to do something might help. Ellywa (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes many people like doing something just for the sake of doing something. Placebos are a huge business. Just make sure you take a safe one :-) The Dutch guideline is a good ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The article appears much improved due to our common work on it! Happy healthy new year. Ellywa (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes agree thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Lung cancer

An edit I made to the page "Lung Cancer" has been removed at least twice, despite it being sourced from the largest case-control study on cannabis and lung cancer ever conducted. In order to maintain the neutrality of the article, balanced information MUST be given. PubMed is a reliable source, and UCLA is a renowned research university. If a study found on PubMed by UCLA contradicts information on a wikipedia page,it seems only reasonable that the information should be made available to the public.

Here is the source if you have any questions http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17035389 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayslearning678 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This information was added improperly to the lung cancer article. That issue aside, case-control studies are primary studies. Primary studies are very rarely used per WP:MEDRS guidelines and secondary sources are strongly preferred. Is there no review article discussing this case control study? That would be a lot better. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Now appears to be edit warring. Please see diff here [57] and here [58] TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes appears to be a bunch of people that disagree with you User:Alwayslearning678. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Trail?

What I am getting from this, is that lately you have been focusing on LEADs, and just updating them based directly off the literature, instead of from the body of the article. Is that right? If so... a) in my view this leaves articles improved of course, but also basically messed up, since the lead is divorced from the body; and b) I know you are really busy and nobody can do everything. I would be willing (and I do not mean this sarcastically at all) to start trailing you and copying content into the body, to bring the body and lead back together again. I get it that you may be too busy to do that. Shall I do that? (real offer, not sarcastic at all. i know it sounds weird) Putting this here since it is separate from the issue of pregnancy content in the lead, and also b/c it is weird. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to see the bodies improved as well. Would be happy to work with you on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

See Also sections

If all See Also sections are removed from all WP articles, WP will become much less useful. The web of relationships between WP articles is vital context.-71.174.175.150 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It is already listed here under "Diseases of the skin and appendages by morphology" at the bottom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

DM

Hi Doc James,

Why did you change my edits on the T1D page? The previous references in the stem cell section truthfully weren't relevant, nor were the papers that noteworthy (T1D has been cured in NOD mice hundreds of times, none of which have ever panned out in human... see http://t1dcuredinmice.blogspot.com/ for a history, written by a frustrated parent who realizes this). Nonetheless, to preserve the work of whoever added this, I moved these references to the vaccine section since they were more about changing immune tolerance, though this too will ultimately need some editing.

By deleting the stem cell section that I updated, you've ignored one of the most important developments in the field of T1D - the ability to create mature beta cells using pluripotent stem cells. This is a game-changing technology that the public needs to know about. It's not just about transplanting cells - it's an unprecedented opportunity to study beta cells derived from patients with T1D. It's completely revolutionary and DEFINITELY needs to stay!

Thanks CellbioPhD (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)CellbioPhD

Please read WP:MEDRS. We typically use secondary sources. Thus updated with a recent secondary source (review article). Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

you might want to look....

Talk:Dyslexia#Merger with Alexia  ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Heading

Hi James,

Could you please leave the references in the stem cell section as is? These are important new studies not to be excluded.

The review you cited was from 2013, additionally in a low-impact journal. These newer papers were published just a few months ago, in Nature Biotech and Cell, and have elegantly addressed the maturity issue faced by previous generations of stem cell-derived beta cells. These are high-quality game-changing developments that are not to be missed. If you'd like to include any criticisms, please refer to the N&V commentary: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25517460, as they've offered a fair appraisal of these studies.

Thanks CellbioPhD (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please use secondary sources. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for formatting the references.

Why did you change the way I wrote the stem cell section? It was not at all inaccurate. Your edit is a secondary point, that previous generations of stem cell-derived beta cells were not as mature. And in fact, that point is highly debatable, since strong evidence shows that these cells mature upon transplantation. JDRF-sponsored trials with such cells are ongoing with ViaCyte.

Regarding the commentary posted on references and evidence-based medicine - agree. But completely disagree that reviews, textbooks, and health organizations are reliable sources. These reflect opinions, not evidence.

I'll likely be posting more changes on the T1D page. I'm a scientist working in stem cells and T1D, and if you find anything inaccurate, I'm open to changes, but not from sources that constitute less stringent evidence (such as reviews published in low-impact journals).

Thanks, CellbioPhD (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The first paper says "S7 cells are not fully equivalent to mature beta cells"[59]
The second paper states "These stem-cell-derived β cells (SC-β) express markers found in mature β cells"[60] This is not equivalence
Thus "differentiated into mature beta cells, the same cell type that is lost in type 1 diabetes" is not supported by either of these references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit count Tools request

Hi Doc James; From your visit to my Talk page earlier today, under the editor Tools for "Edit count" on my user account, the count summary currently indicates in my history that the account has been blocked for a month. Could I request that this be brought back to its previous indication of a clean account. "Tools" access is generally administration only. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no ability to remove these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Intentional or un? Nuking synthesis section of ibuprofen.

In this change: 

10:18, 24 November 2014‎ Doc James (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,729 bytes) (-4,063)‎ . . (→‎Synthesis: sock)

It appears that you nuked the synthesis section for ibuprofen, and didn't replace it with anything. Your comment was "sock".

Do you have kids? Do you leave your terminal unlocked? :)

I have restored an abbreviated version of the synthesis section. If your deletion was intentional, feel free to rollback my restoration, but include a comment or pointer that says why or where to find the info. Riventree (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

We have bunch of socks by User:Nuklear. Stuff is often supported by primary sources or plagiarized. Thus we remove it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Term of art? What's a sock? Maybe "sock puppet"?
Riventree (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:SOCK yup. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No evidence that neuroprotection is all about avoiding fever

First: Happy New Year Doc James!

Can we discuss, regarding cardiac arrest: "This indicates that the key may be preventing fever rather than hypothermia itself." This statement is an opinion. Many doctors and nurses all over the world understood this opinion in a very wrong way and stopped active cooling, targeted temperature management respectivly. But, there is no evidence that "normothermia" is as good as hypothermia. No evidence that neuroprotection is all about avoiding fever. In fact, the strictly 36.0°C temperature target in the TTM trail, that you highlighted, was reached and maintained by active cooling. All we know is:

  • Fever is associated with poor outcome
  • Mild hypothermia is associated with good outcome
  • 36.0°C by active cooling is associated with as good outcome as compared to 33 °C (reached after long time, >8 hours respectively) in a study population with a very high bystander rate of CPR of 73% and a median time to CPR of 60 sec (TTM trail)

Internationally, bystander rates as low as 1% up to as high as 44% were reported. That is the complete story. Articles of Wikipedia shall be balanced. We should be careful to highlight studies without a good balance like the TTM trail, that have the potential to mislead people in practice (because of a very special study design). Best --DocGlobal (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:DocGlobal happy to discuss. The first two trials were not particularly good either as the comparison was not normothermia but no temperature management.
Thus we only know
  • Mild hypothermia as compared to fever is associated with good outcome
Thus we have a few possibilities of why 36C appeared as good as 33C in this trial.
Have toned down to "This may be because preventing fever rather than hypothermia itself is more important" as I agree some of my wording was inappropriate. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Doc James for the toned down published opinon. I agree, may be preventing fever rather than hypothermia itself is more important. May be. I agree, we have a few possibilities of why 36C appeared as good as 33C in this trial. Some possibilities are:

  • 33 °C group reached after long time (>8 hours respectively) compared to 2 hours that Bernard (2002, N Eng J) provided
  • study population with a very high bystander rate of CPR of 73% and a median time to CPR of 60 sec.

Best --DocGlobal (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes still a lot of unknowns. By the way welcome to Wikipedia User:DocGlobal. Great to have another ER doc :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If ischemia time is very short there may be very little to protect from reperfusion injury
  • If strong protection (target temperature 33°C) has got a significant delay it may not be different from a much faster weak protection (target temperature 36°C).

Cheers ;-) DocGlobal (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Targeted_temperature_management - Methods

A question regarding Targeted_temperature_management: In Methods is written: "A patient's rewarming should occur at a rate of a minimum of 0.17 °C/hr (0.31 °F/hr) in order to avoid injury, or a rewarming phase of at least 24 hours from 33–37 °C (91–99 °F). ... [24]" I could not find this context minimum of 0.17 °C/hr in the original text of source 24. Where did this come from? Why a minimum? Better we publish the maximum, this would make sense because of the reperfusion injury syndrome. Thoughts? Best --DocGlobal (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Source was poor quality. We need a better source some trimmed it until one is found. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
User:DocGlobal found a good source "Some investigators suggest a rewarming rate of 0.2° to 0.5°C per hour in patients after CA and an even slower rate of 0.1° to 0.2°C per hour in patients with primary neurologic conditions" [61] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Cheers --DocGlobal (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Doc James

I am Mbcap and also a new editor. I was hoping your would give me nudge in the right direction. I would like to at some point start helping with medicine and pharmacology related articles since this is my area of expertise. Are there any guidelines that I should be familiar with before I begin? I would be grateful for any advice. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A big welcome. Please check out WP:MEDHOW, WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. Let me know if you have any questions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Onychomycosis

Please go to the page Vicks VapoRub and search for the word onychomycosis. There, it is written with reference about the effects of Vicks VapoRub on onychomycosis. After that please re-edit the page on onychomycosis. Thank you. Coolfoolz (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Have removed the poor sources from Vicks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Happy days!

EllenvanderVeen (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

James Heilman2

Is this really what you intended to call this article? NawlinWiki (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I need a work space for a few hours in main space. The issue is with the coloring of text in none main space. Will delete when I am done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, James Heilman2

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, James Heilman2. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Leishmaniasis. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Leishmaniasis – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this copy should have been in your own namespace, e.g., User:Doc James/Leishmaniasis. I'm surprised you were able to review a page that you created yourself... QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Qwertyus. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, James Heilman2, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Qwertyus I am needing a work space in main space for a few hours. The text is color coded differently by WikEd depending on which space it is in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hm. Well, I suppose you should click the "Contest" button then, and have an admin decide on this. I don't really get the problem (I don't use WikEd). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
A new article is being placed there ever couple of minutes for the next few hours. I will delete it when I am done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, James Heilman2

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, James Heilman2. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Female genital mutilation. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Female genital mutilation – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 17:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please at least keep them all together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Doc the template "++in use}}" may help to keep the patrollers at bay for a while in such cases. Or not. Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I am only needing the content live for a split second to get the coloring correct. The patrollers are not to much of any issue. Hopefully will not need to do this again for another few months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Slashdot

Just so you know, someone is saying negative things about you on Slashdot, presumably knowing you aren't following the discussion and not going to defend yourself there.

Article: The Downside of Connected Healthcare: Cyberchondria

Full comment:

Better WebMD than Wikipedia (Score:2)

by bluegutang (2814641) on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @04:21AM (#48743929)

At least WebMD doesn't have editors [wikipedia.org] going around changing medical articles to make them more negative and pessimistic, while no more informative or accurate than before.

It's like, The placebo effect is one of the most important contributors to patient recovery, so why are you TRYING to destroy it?

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6637697&cid=48743929 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.28.91.31 (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes we have fairly high requirements for sourcing. Wondering if this is a result of this breaking of all the references here [62] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You suggested that the web page I linked to looked like spam. Not sure how to respond. There are fewer ads on that page than many pages linked to in wiki, and that page itself was referenced in an article in a peer reviewed journal.

http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/references

A low-carb high fat dieter (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This would be a fine reference
Feinman, RD; Pogozelski, WK; Astrup, A; Bernstein, RK; Fine, EJ; Westman, EC; Accurso, A; Frassetto, L; Gower, BA; McFarlane, SI; Nielsen, JV; Krarup, T; Saslow, L; Roth, KS; Vernon, MC; Volek, JS; Wilshire, GB; Dahlqvist, A; Sundberg, R; Childers, A; Morrison, K; Manninen, AH; Dashti, HM; Wood, RJ; Wortman, J; Worm, N (January 2015). "Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: Critical review and evidence base". Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.). 31 (1): 1–13. PMID 25287761.
User:CarbShark which dif of mine are you referring to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Asia

HI Doc,

The absence in Asia and citation are already in the history section. I thought it was interesting enough to include in the intro. Will defer to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talk • contribs) 04:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes was moving it and then realized that you had already put it there. There appears to be a number of potential explanations for why Asia does not have the disease. IMO it is best to discuss them all together as you have done in the epidemiology section already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Refs

Hi, I'm not that familiar with the Wikipedia workflow so I am not sure. But I saw your message on my talk page. about needing high quality citations. Erm. I might have inserted the wrong link. Please go over to Zinc Deficiency and you will see how the zinc is implicated in hairloss.. And oh. if you really want citation, you might want to see if this particular one is fine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3746228/ Thank you! Haaaa (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS we are looking for review articles rather than case reports. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Q

can you please provide your private email address, I would like to send you a message about the mst services page. Thank you, nehocirol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehocirol (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It is in the left hand column under email this user. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding to the sum of all human knowledge

After cleaning up, I went to see where the junk came from. We have this lovely off-topic addition (to an already dreadful article) from someone somehow affiliated with this course whose prof is working "to improve the assessment of bipolar disorder in diverse community samples". I wish he could do that without adding a boatload of off-topic content to Wikipedia.

This is another of the frequent problems I encounter with student editing; when you dig in to the really bad additions, you often find a prof pushing a pet agenda, and with limited knowledge of how to work on Wikipedia. Would they be proud of adding that kind of junk to a "real" journal or encyclopedia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes many try to treat us like a blog or facebook where they can promote specific ideas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism at Psychiatry

Could you take a look and determine if an IP address block and or partial protection is warranted? Thanks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.174.127.63

Formerly 98 (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just semiprotected it for a week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Common cold

Hi James,

Please consider adding http://news.yale.edu/2015/01/05/cold-virus-replicates-better-cooler-temperatures article to references and update if needed.

BR, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.70.138 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. We already common on the effects of cold. The primary source you link to is about airway cells of mice. [63] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

'Fourth factor' removal

Dear Doc James,

I'll bear in mind your revert action of my "Fourth factor" addition. The so-called Fourth Factor was suggested by Dr Claude Franceschi, an angiologist of international renown. It's a theory.

While I fully respect your attitude of removing unreliable sources, as an example if you consider the Big Bang theory, until proved otherwise, it's still only made of speculations. However, the Big Bang Theory is the subject of many articles, including one on Wikipedia.

On the contrary, the Fourth factor theory has been validated by a 16 months double-blind randomized controlled trial from 1992 (see the underneath reference; sorry in french), which was not clear in my earlier text. I should have inserted the latter reference instead!

Consequently, I'm sure you'll agree it could be in the interest of many patients in the world and in preventive/curative medicine to mention this new approach, at least to encourage further medical experiments. http://www.sepp-dizeta.com/editor_netb/files/File/File12%20studi%20e%20risultati.pdf

I suggest the new following text in replacement, in 'Causes':

A new pathophysiology of the hemorrhoid disease has been proposed. According to this theory, the inferior rectal veins are not the cause of the hemorrhoids disease but instead, the victims of what has been called the Fourth factor. The latter would be the physical and chemical aggression of the mucosa of the anal canal, indirectly affecting the rectal veins. A 16 months hospital double-blind randomized controlled trial confirmed the theory.[1] This study could lead to further experiments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geiss (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that you have used a non English ref from 1995. If this theory has been accepted like the Big Bang theory has you should have no problem finding a recent secondary source to support it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The trial you link to is about "intrajet". I find zero references on pubmed about it [64] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.sepp-dizeta.com/editor_netb/files/File/File12%20studi%20e%20risultati.pdf

New reverted text

Dear Doc James,

Here is another link to a related article (in italian) on the same subject in "Act. Méd. Int. – Angiologie", a reliable publication: http://www.sepp-dizeta.com/editor_netb/files/File/Articolo%20originale%20tradotto%20italiano%20con%20grafico%20_grafico%20file%209_.pdf

It's up to you deciding if such an information could help the medical community finding out possible causes of the hemorroid disease, in the interest of patients.

Anything from the last 5 to 10 years in English? Has this not been discussed in the English literature? And if it hasn't I guess the question is why? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Cryolipolysis

Is any of the material under Business and commercial history considered a medical claim? Currently there is an article on Zeltiq Aesthetics (the producer of Coolsculpting), which I don't think is really notable enough for a separate page, as oppose to a section. It relies almost exclusively on primary sources and some of the information there is not accurate. Saying the product is intended for losing weight for example, comes off as very poor medical advice based on my understanding of it. The Beauty Choice Awards bit seems promotional to me. I was hoping to merge it with Cryolipolysis and replace with the secondary-source based business section, then consider renaming to Coolsculpting (what the public knows it as). CorporateM (Talk) 20:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

We typically go with generic names rather than brand names. Thus cryolipolysis rather than coolsculpting is the correct term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh that's strange - I thought Coolsculpting and Cryolipolysis were synonymous and the Zeltiq page said they owned the trademarks to the Cryolipolysis term, but on the Cryolipolysis page it says there are multiple products that use the technique. Let me see if I can figure out what's going on. We may need a much shorter page if the sources referring to Cryolipolysis are not specifically referring to Coolsculpting. CorporateM (Talk) 20:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Cryolipolysis is used here [65] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yah, the medical sources mostly say Cryolipolysis, while the media sources mostly say Coolsculpting. I figured we'd want to go with the term used by the public, rather than the one used by medical experts, as our audience here is the public. However, right now I'm trying to figure out if Cryolipolysis = Zeltiq's Coolsculpting, or if it is a broader term referring to a technique used by many, in which case I made an egregious error thinking all these sources about Cryolipolysis were referring to them specifically. I'm gonna go back to the drawing board a bit with that one. If you have time, I'm also working on Invisalign here. Fairly new to medical articles, so still learning. CorporateM (Talk) 20:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
We typically go with medical terms here not media / advertising terms Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

TCM and pseudoscience

You said you'll email Nature about their stance regarding TCM as pseudoscience [66], so do notify everyone at the discussion once they reply. Thanks. -A1candidate (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes will do. Email sent. No reply yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Obstetric fistula Illustration

Hello Doc James, I noticed you were a major contributor to the Obstetric Fistula page and I would like your input on an illustration I created to contribute. If you have the time to take a look at the image I would greatly appreciate your professional opinion. Any suggestions on anatomical edits, layout, labeling, etc. are welcome. Also, if there are other illustrations you think the page could use I would be happy to make them. I have included a link to the image below. The image is more or less a polished version of the illustration that is already on the page.

http://vhenryart.com/ObstetricFistula.png

Thank You for your time,

Valerie Henry VHenryArt (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:VHenryArt great having you join us. We really need some medical illustrators among our numbers :-)
I am not a major contributor at obstetric fistula but happy to help.
I would change "Fistula area" to "Areas fistula commonly occur"
Also it just shows the fistula forming between the uterus and the bowel / bladder which can happen but connections between the bladder and vagina or bowel and vagina per [67] and [68] are also common
So I would extend those red lines down some.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Doc James-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by VHenryArt (talk • contribs) 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Great! I am happy to join and help spread knowledge through illustration and collaboration!

Thank you for your pointers. I've made the changes to the illustration. Let me know if I missed something/didn't represent the concept clearly. http://vhenryart.com/ObstetricFistula.png VHenryArt (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Great I like it :-) Are you taking proposals for new images? Do you need help placing it live in the lead of the article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Doc James-- Thanks for your help! Yes, absolutely, I am taking proposals for new images. I might need assistance with posting it live in the article, but I'll give it a try first. If I have trouble I will send a note with my questions. VHenryArt (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Doc James-- I do have one question, to start off. Would you suggest I replace the diagram that is on the page now or post my image above or below it?VHenryArt (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Replace it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Done! Page has been updated. VHenryArt (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Cardiac dysrhythmia deletion

The cited source is a review article, by a third-party, containing and referring published secondary sources and, accurately reflecting current medical knowledge. The fact that it was published in 1986 does not mean that the information ceases to be valid. If you can show that the information I extracted from the source has been superseded, became obsolete, or negated in any way, then prove it but, please do not simply delete the whole contribution. There is always the "Clarification needed" in superscript that could be added to invite further clarifications. The source meets the high-quality reliable sources guidelines. It is a review published in a reputable medical journal, reliably referring academic and professional books and work written by experts in the relevant fields. The information that I posted in the article is not content that could be considered as coming from a primary source either. You are welcome to reword my contribution if you think you can improve it but, to simply delete it would deprive Wikipedia of important information. Thank you. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Unable to varify this [69] If you have a modern reference that does so we can consider adding it. While for less common topics we can extend age of references back 10 years. 30 years is too old and this is a major area of research. I have found a ref that discusses histamine blockers and concludes they function via affecting QTc Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of primary source articles published within the last 10 years about studies involving histamine or it's inhibition, and cardiac effects including dysrhythmias, such as the ref you found implicating the effect on QTc. Just look at the usual databases (Pubmed, etc.). My source, albeit being older, is the best topic-specific review with second sources I found so far, with not much time to look for more. Regarding WP:MEDDATE, it says "These instructions... may need to be relaxed in areas where... few reviews are being published". While trying to accommodate your recentism, and agreeing with you on "Antihistamines appear to increase the risk of dysrhythmias" in some cases (yet, I've known several anecdotal cases where the opposite has been true and, H1-inhibitors treated PAC and supra-ventricular arrhythmias successfully, with better side effects profile than beta-blockers), I limited my contribution to our consensus on a lightweight claim. Your disruptive editing is approaching edit warring, further action may need to be taken against your disruptions. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Dutasteride and others

Hello Doc James, Could I please bring to your attention the activities of IP's 86.29.149.179 and 86.31.31.106 who appear to be the same user and is adding unsourced information to a number of medical articles, including Dutasteride. It appears from Jytdog that these contributions are a sock from an indeff blocked Nuklear. I have left notes on both IP Talk pages to no avail. Hope you can take some action. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes both socks and blocked both. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello again Doc James, Thank you for your kind message on my Talk page. I am becoming increasing concerned that the sock is jumping from IP address to IP address on a variety of medical articles. Is it not time for all these articles to be protected for use by confirmed users only? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes this sock has been jumping accounts for years. Let me know when you pick them up and I will revert and block. I am not sure if there is much more we can do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine

Sunshine!
Hello Doc James! Pine✉ has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Pine✉ 21:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Pine. Some sunshine is nice when it is winter and so grey. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Pages you (don't) keep an eye on

Just FYI, your "Pages I Keep An Eye On" link is broken. – Robin Hood  (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes many things break around here. Have fixed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Big thumb does it again

Sorry Doc. My rv was totally unintentional. Big thumb during scroll through Watchlist. Moriori (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Gathered as much :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Invisalign

Better? Pubmed only had 5 Review articles on Invisalign, only 3 were from the last five years and 1 just had a couple paragraphs, so basically I just summarized 2 sources the best I could. Unfortunately, since I am not a student or faculty, the university library won't let me access their impact scores database in order to verify an impact score above 1. I was surprised to see stuff like the 2005 study being called "inconclusive" when I had thought it had definitively shown that Invisalign was less effective at the time. CorporateM (Talk) 18:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There has not been enough research to make any strong conclusions. The evidence that it is not as good is tentative. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It is kind of weird that the sources will say there have been no conclusive research (one cites the 2005 study and one says there is nothing), but then go on to summarize the academic literature anyway in a rather conclusive manner. Are you saying I should add words like "probably" like you did? I can do that. I'll do it now. If anything else comes up, let me know! CorporateM (Talk) 18:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 Done I've implemented wording along the lines of above and made an official request via Request Edit. CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Doc. Do you have any other concerns about the draft? When I started on the article it was filled with original synthesis, where it cited a study about braces and a separate one about Invisalign, and then compared the two, so I think this is definitely a step above that. If you have any other tweaks, you should feel free to make them directly in the draft if you like, even if it's in my user-space, or just point them out. CorporateM (Talk) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Do not have good enough internet to follow up until next week. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Finasteride

Thanks for responding to my request for input. Much appreciated. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Cardiovascular Micrograph caption problem

Hey James, No worries about the minor edit reversion on the cardiovascular talk page. As a new editor my effort was more or less a test. I admire and congratulate you on your 120,000 + edits. The world is benefiting. It seems there's a bad link in the Cardiovascular disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiovascular_disease caption. Either a mistake or a hack. "heart" links to http://www.dreams-ar.com/ Maybe it should link here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart The page is semi-protected and I can't edit it directly. I am now attempting to use the "Request edit" function. Jess (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks appreciated it. That was a hack. User:Anupmehra fixed it here [70]. Please drop me a note anytime if you need help with things :-) Great having you here and after a few days you will be able to edit semi protected pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

SBD

Hi again, James. I suspect you stopped following the discussion at Talk:South Beach Diet after your final comment in early November, but I'd like to just fill you in on what happened. Simply put, I offered a number of suggestions for updating and correcting the article, as well as bringing a greater balance to it. In this case, very few editors have been involved and, in my opinion, the most active editor has introduced a strong POV against the diet, whereas the full range of medical sources are far more balanced. Late last year, I became frustrated enough that I stepped away, leaving behind a list of unresolved issues. However, I'm concerned enough about the quality of the page that I am likely to return to it soon.

From our past conversations, I'm aware that you hold communications professionals in extreme suspicion, which I can appreciate, but I hope I've demonstrated that I aim to bring clients to Wikipedia's view, not vice versa. I'm not at all asking you to get involved, but as someone I respect and who cares about the quality of medical topics on Wikipedia, I hope you'll at least keep an eye on it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey User:WWB_Too. This is the 4th request from a PR firm I have had regarding editing Wikipedia. I think we involved with the medical community need to discuss this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, James. Certainly, I'd be open to participate in a broader discussion about this topic—no doubt these kinds of issues are in play on other topics, and I appreciate that there are a range of views worth considering. Let me know if I can find a way to be involved. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Alzheimers research/prevention

This interesting recent research is not referenced in the Alzheimer's Disease articles:

Benzodiazepine Use and Risk of Alzheimer’s Disease: Case-Control Study http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g5205

I noticed this research here: http://www.agec.org/2014/10/study-associates-increased-risk-for-alzheimers-disease-with-the-use-of-benzodiazepines/

I am a computer scientist, not a medical professional, so I hope you will evaluate it for reference in one of the Alzheimers pages.Nklawler (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Nancy

Yes benzos and other cognitive suppressants are not recommended in AD. We should however use secondary rather than primary sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist

Thanks for conforming the formatting of my two tables to Wikipedia standard. I knew it had to be done, but was too tired that day and you beat me to it. Still getting back up to speed after a long absence from editingChrisWinter (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC). Yes, I guess I'm a WikiOgre.

Great to have you back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Cascadia Wikimedians User Group 2015 goals and annual plan draft

In case you're interested, we're discussing our goals and annual plan. You can add comments directly in the Google spreadsheet if you have any. Thanks! --Pine✉ 03:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

Heading

Hey can you check out these sources for me:

Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce. BJU Int, 1999, 83(Suppl. 1):34–44.

Alanis MC, Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world’s oldest and most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv, 2004, 59(5):379–395.

Both do a good description of the anatomy of the prepuce. The first is an article that has a primary focus on the prepuce. I think that this may be a better source for the technique section. Maybe we can use it to describe its anatomy (and keep away from describing its function.) That's because the function is too controversial.

JohnP (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Doc James,

I have added a glossary link to the hair loss section of wikipedia. I hope that this is useful to the page material. Please let me know if otherwise and I will take it off. Thank you. Ygiant (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Ygiant

One could create such as list on Wikipedia. That link is kind of spammy so I have removed it. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

New sources on foreskin

Hi,

in response to your comment t"he previous content was better It was simpler for example "The foreskin extends out from the base of the glans and covers the glans when the penis is flaccid." This is more complicated "The foreskin(prepuce) is a specialized, junctional mucocutaneous tissue. "

I could fix that really easily. I didn't have the time this week to look over that article that much. There are ways to rephrase that so that it is easy to read for the reader.

JohnP (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the current content. WHO is a good source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Section on Sexual Effects of Circumcision

I just did a review of a big chunk of the literature that we have. I actually found that the majority of the articles that I read did give some reference to circumcision's effect on sexual health. Many authors would briefly describe how it improves or harms sexual health in the summaries of their articles. So it looks like the majority of our literature is giving some reference to it.

JohnP (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Which literature that "we have"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey I'm going to make some changes to the phimosis part and the part on HPV, don't immediately delete.

Hi,

I'm going to make a few changes. Their not bias but there are problems with how the sources are stated. For HPV, the clearance is from the skin of the penis, not the body. If you closely read Rehmeyer and Larke you will see that. This is because you have HPV for life, you can't clear it from your body. The reason why people who are circumcised are less likely to infect is because it clears from their dicks faster.


Also, for the phimosis part I'm going to elaborate a bit where I think the information is a bit skipped over. Please read over it and get back to me.


JohnP (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe get consensus first. Many of your edits have issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So you erase my whole edit because of a little mistake?

Honestly I was trying to add some good info. Why the fuck did you erase my whole edit. So you go erase the whole thing rather then fix the little mistakes.

Honestly this is a shitty page anyway. I was trying to elaborate a bit because you're lacking info, I mess up a little bit and you erase everything

JohnP (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A number of your changes, changed correct information to incorrect information. For example you say "You get HPV for your lifetime, its never cleared from your body" which is wrong.
Steroid creams are not a "new treatment"
This "If the balanoposthitis starts to occur often then a child may have recurrent balanoposthitis." is simply the definition of the word recurrent thus not needed
Many of your changes duplicate content already in the article. I have already combined the bit that was not already there with the preexisting text.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference

Hi Doc, James, I am writing an assignment and need to reference my work. Just want to find out if Doc is your surname, year of publication and who tthe publishers are and were they are based.( topic on dka) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.124.120 (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you writing for Wikipeida? We generally do not recommend using Wikipedia as a reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note

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.

I emailed you a message to your private email. I would appreciate a response when you are back from vacation. best, nehocirol

Have replied. Feel free to use the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO funding application question

Hi James

I've added my reply to your question about my funding application for working with UNESCO on the talk page there.

Best wishes

Mrjohncummings (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and medical claims

Was wondering if you had any advice on books for medical claims. I figured they were fair game, but then this one came off a bit promotional sounding and the author appears to be in the business of selling these kinds of treatments. Is there an RS-test such as the one you provided me regarding studies?

Sorry I'm being such a burden on fairly trivial articles. I have not done much work in medical subjects. I have found in most cases they cannot be helped (pharma companies are generally bad inquiries) and WikiProject Medicine does a good-enough job not to need paid hands. CorporateM (Talk) 02:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We only allow major medical textbooks (such as those used during medical education). The book you link is of poor quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Before I ask someone at Resource Exchange for access to the source, can you verify whether this source meets the requirements? It's just the next search result at PubMed. I do not have access. CorporateM (Talk) 20:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks okay. Impact factor exists. [71]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, this is just intended to be a very short summary, following Wikipedia:Summary Style, so I'm just going to summarize the one source once I get access to it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If you have time, I've also pinged Anthony to look at the Invisalign draft, but it is unlikely anyone will merge it without wanting to hear from you first RE if any reasonable objections have been addressed. I would prefer you make any desired edits directly in the draft, to avoid puppetmastering me to make edits I may disagree with just to get it approved. I don't care to argue over the details anyway, so long as it will pass a GA review. CorporateM (Talk) 20:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Just got back. Will take me some time to look at it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Postural Restoration

Doc James,

Thank you for your advice to review the editing process, I have done this many times, and have also had much of my time wasted writing this article as you and others continue to revise it by deleting sources which are provided from medical journals, and re-phrasing sentences which are applicable to the science. There are many courses taught using this approach and I encourage you to visit the website for the science where I learned much of the information from. In the mean time I am curious why you feel the need to add phrases like "there is little evidence" the evidence is in the remaining sources used. Also in the first section why you feel "It is used by some physical therapy and athletic trainers.[2] There is little quality evidence on its usefulness in any health condition." is better then including other fields it is used in such as athletic training and strength and conditioning. As its website can inform you that it is. Please provide clarification for these changes as I am in goof faith trying to better the article without lowering its credibility. Also if there is any other category of wiki that this would fit under please give me your thoughts because I am very close to deleting it and starting over outside of the link to wiki medicine and trying a more general association.

Alex.e.miller (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I find no pubmed indexed review articles for the topic in question. Raises concerns for me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fluconazole

Am starting to expand this article, but antifungals are a little outside my expertise and experience. Would appreciate it if you could look in from time to time to ensure that the article fits your requirements for the WHO Essential Meds project, and given that medical students often read Wikipedia, to help ensure that I do no harm. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for taking this on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_75&oldid=1125491437"