This is a Wikipediauser 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok I'll leave it for now till I find more reliable sources. In the meantime since you're a medic I'd recommend you find some sources. WOuld you deny this to be a cause?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Freckles04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 [2]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Freckles06:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose your attempts to give the article undue weight. We do not base articles on the few exceptions that are present.
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 Freckles06:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Freckles06:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.[3]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Freckles06:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Freckles07:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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 Freckles00:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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... [[6]]32cllou (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
— Revi is wishing you a MerryChristmas! 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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."
