User talk:Doc James: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:04, 12 January 2015

Translation
Main page

Those Involved
(sign up)

Newsletter

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.

Please click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by .

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've just semiprotected it for a week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. We already common on the effects of cold. The primary source you link to is about airway cells of mice. [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The trial you link to is about "intrajet". I find zero references on pubmed about it [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cryolipolysis is used here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

We typically go with medical terms here not media / advertising terms Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

In the media: ISIL propaganda video; AirAsia complaints

Interview: Interview with Jakob, one of Wikipedia's more prolific waterway contributors

Featured content: Kock up

Traffic report: Auld Lang Syne

TCM and pseudoscience

You said you'll email Nature about their stance regarding TCM as pseudoscience [4], so do notify everyone at the discussion once they reply. Thanks. -A1candidate (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 [5] and [6] are also common

So I would extend those red lines down some.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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![reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Replace it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Unable to varify this [7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes both socks and blocked both. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks Pine. Some sunshine is nice when it is winter and so grey. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.sepp-dizeta.com/editor_netb/files/File/File12%20studi%20e%20risultati.pdf

[1]

@@ Line 149: / Line 149: @@
 [[File:Information.svg|35px|left|alt=]] 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 [[WP:MEDRS|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. [[Special:Contributions/98.217.155.45|98.217.155.45]] ([[User talk:98.217.155.45|talk]]) 11:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 ::Unable to varify this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cardiac_dysrhythmia&diff=641998712&oldid=641922900] 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 [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|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. [[Special:Contributions/98.217.155.45|98.217.155.45]] ([[User talk:98.217.155.45|talk]]) 06:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 == Dutasteride and others ==