Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Ortho

Hello my colleague. I am Dr. Harry Gouvas, MD, PhD, Orthopaedic Surgeon, in Greece Thanks for your advices You can write to me in harrygouvas@gmail.com Best regards and a Happy New Year PS. I have been in Montreal Canada in 1990 (International Congress) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrygouvas (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I very much am wishing to go to Greece. Looks like a wonderful country. Maybe latter this year... Happy New Year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Spinal stenosis

Hi, now that Spinal stenosis is a disambiguation page, we could use your help fixing incoming links per WP:FIXDABLINKS. This tool lists the dablinks that still need fixing. We really need your help; I don't see an easy way to distinguish them. Thanks, --JaGatalk 19:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Problem; many of the sources aren't clear which kind of stenosis it is; perhaps that page should be a list rather than a dab page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright, spinning my wheels, this is all wrong. JaGa redirected Spinal stenosis (disambiguation) to Spinal stenosis, so which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
That was for WP:INTDABLINK. Looks like it's all cleared up now. --JaGatalk 05:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Welcome back

I did pretty much nothing at Schizophrenia, as I was occupied by the issues at Mechanisms of schizophrenia, and more. Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work on it further when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Exercsize blinding?

Hmm.. not sure if you realise the problem here? Is it possible to do sham-exercise trials? In cases like this there must be other criteria. I have not examined the evidence in detail but for my purposes I am sufficiently convinced that exercise vastly improves eg recurrence rates and most likely also the primary risk for BC. Richiez (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The ref says "Our findings suggest that moderate physical activity, including brisk walking, may reduce postmenopausal breast cancer risk and that increases in activity after menopause may be beneficial." Thus we should say something similar. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have proposed the renaming of a category, and wanted to know if you would consider commenting on the proposed renaming over at that link. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Psoriasis generic drug names

Both brand and generic drug names should be present for biologics. 1) Biologics are unique and are governed by strict FDA guidelines that prevent the manufacture of generics so brand name and generic name will always refer to literally the same biomolecule 2) The main point of the article is to be informative to the general public and rare patient, both of whom will recognize brand names over generic drug names. Generic drug names make sense for drugs where generics exist or may exist in the future. This is not the case with Biologics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stella inu (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Video box in the depression article

Hey there, I'm addressing you about your recent removal of the link below the lead in the MDD article.

I wanted to bring to your attention that the video's relevance to the article does not stem exclusively from its content, but its medium. You see, in an article dealing with depression, it is most likely that a substantial percentage of the readers audience would not in fact be able to read, as they suffer from concentration problems in varying levels. This was the reason why the editors decided to include it in the first place. I can testify for myself that a short, precised clip is much easier to digest when under such conditions, and it is necessary that others will be able to find it in the future as well.
I would like to refer you now to the extensive discussion that preceded the placing of the video box where it was. You may find that all the debates have already been made, and the editors' actions were well based.
I would really like to see the link restored, for the benefit of all Wikipedia users, depressed and undepressed.

Thank you very much. 85.65.243.51 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. 85.65.243.51 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Mycomp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CPR ancillary services

As you may recall, my interest in the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) fleet was initially inspired by the role of Captain Samuel Robinson and the RMS Empress of Australia during the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923.

Starting in May 2008, I expanded CP Ships and I developed the fleet table. At the same time, I expanded the cohort of articles about the CPR ocean liners -- see CP Ships edit history. In the course of research, I uncovered information about a number of other CPR ancillary services, but I didn't invest time in developing other articles.

As a token of year-end thanks, I began the process of developing these "loose ends". Since you now live and work in British Columbia, you were in the back of my mind as I worked.

In a sense, the following articles were created as a kind of wiki-honour -- like a Barnstar, but more meaningful.

Also, I created one other (non-BC-related) article as a corollary

Best wishes for 2011. --Tenmei (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

quick question

Hi Dr. Heilman, A quick question, I may be confused, sorry if thats the case. When first becoming an editor a month ago I remember seeing a comment about a published study looking at wikipedia use by healthcare professionals. Was that your discussion that I remember reading? If so, would you send me the reference? I ask because I am in Chiro college at CMCC (as you may recall) and I have a little brother in medical school at the University of Alberta and we have recently had a discussion on sources of info as future health care practitioners (DynaMed, MedScape, Pubmed,...Wikipedia?) I am curious if the study looked at DCs or just 'mainstream' health care professionals, and what the results were. Again, sorry if this was someone else's discussion that I was 'eavesdropping' on. As always, best regards, Puhlaa (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It was me. Will look when I have time and let you know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No rush at all, Many thanks! Puhlaa (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that for me. I was unable to track the source of those statistics, Do you think it is accurate? Puhlaa (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

Hi Doc,

You recently edited my contribution to the page Acne Vulgaris. I wanted to add to the treatment/management section a quick note that Mandelic Acid is an effective treatment for Acne. I'm a University student at USC and I've been doing research on the effects of Mandelic Acid for the treatment of Acne and have found it to be extremely effective, more so than Salicylic Acid, and a safer substitute for antibiotics or topical/oral retinoids. In this section it mentions Alpha Hydroxy Acid, which Mandelic Acid is grouped with, but is of worthiness and to the benefit of the acne suffering community that it be mentioned on its own. I think you have more experience in editing wikipedia pages than I do, so I was hoping that you would save both of us the time and make this contribution.

Thanks,

Jordan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordanoh (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Will look into it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis and the complication of the Wiki article

Good Morning, Sir. I wonder if you would be kind enough to help me out please. Some time ago, I tagged the article here on Anaphylaxis as being Too Technical for a regular reader of the Wiki to understand. At this point in time, very little has changed. I have had several attacks of Anaphylaxis in the last 14 years, and even I don't understand it, not entirely anyhow. I have some past medical experience, but not enough by a long shot to do anything with this. If you would take a look and suggest some improvements, or maybe even try to work on it, it would be a great benefit. I can't see the point of having articles people can't understand without a Med degree :) Many thanks, BarkingFish 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree and have been meaning on getting back to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ganfyd for deletion

The article Ganfyd is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 10:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Note, this should be linked to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganfyd (2nd_nomination) instead. —Soap— 12:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Pathologie Descartes (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at This, that and the other's talk page.
Message added 11:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Consider this!

I presume you want this archived eventually or something? JFW | T@lk 15:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks should auto archive now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your heartbeat sound recording http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HROgg.ogg

Re: your heartbeat sound recording http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HROgg.ogg

Hello Dr Heilman,

I’ve made what I think is an improved (louder) version of your heartbeat recording “HROgg” Which can be downloaded from here … http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HROgg_Louder.ogg

Feel free to use it as you wish, (e.g. maybe replace the original audio sample on the Wikipedia page).

PS your obstructed small bowel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SBOOgg.ogg could be made louder & clearer e.g. here ... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SBOOgg_louder.ogg

PPS Not much can be done for your distorted wheezing http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wheeze2O.ogg but I’ve tried to reduce the noise on it here ... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wheeze2O_noise_reduced.ogg

Archive Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For your support and fast action regarding legal threats. Nobody knows better than you the feeling.--Garrondo (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Wikipedia needs to take strong action in these sorts of cases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Well done on all the hard work on dengue fever. A well deserved GA. JFW | T@lk 15:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review and extensive work on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Well done--Garrondo (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Non notable-opportunistic citation in CCSVI?

What do you think of this citation recently added to the article? It is from the first and only volume and first and only issue of an internet journal not indexed in pubmed. I have gone to the website and it looks quite unprofessional (low quality internet advertising, bad design...). In addition while it is a review it hardly adds any info to existing reviews and I have doubts in its peer review proccess (first author is the chief editor of the journal). In my opinion, independently of content of the article (Against CCSVI), it hardly complies with MEDRS and authors are simply using the WP article as a way to advertise their work and their recently created journal. What do you think? --Garrondo (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It is freely accessible which is a plus. The journal is from Egypt. It does little harm. If it was to contradict other sources yes I would have concerns. Would just leave it for now.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The ip user is repeatedly using the source to make a point, which goes against many WP policies. While well intented I reverted the addition and left a note in his talk page.--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments in rollbacks

Hi. May I suggest taking the time to provide helpful comments when reverting good-faith edits? I'm specifically thinking about this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Management_of_baldness&diff=406531105&oldid=406530966

(This was not my edit.) At first I didn't even notice the "Ref." text in the middle of the comment. But even if the original editor did notice it, I don't know that a new Wikipedian would understand what it's intended to mean. And look what it led to in this particular case. :) Maybe something like "references an unreliable source" instead?

Thanks! Axlrosen (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A full explanation was placed on this users talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Drug Overdose

I think it would be much better to list the specific drugs. Not all barbiturates or benzodiazepines commonly cause OD's. There are a very select few that are far more likely to cause an overdose and I think that is very important. For example, in several studies on the relative toxicity of benzos, temazepam was far more toxic and likely to cause overdose and death (with or without alcohol or other CNS depressants). Temazepam has the highest number of deaths per million prescriptions at 11.9 (95% confidence interval 10.9 to 12.8), which is higher than some tricyclic antidepressants and just as high as some barbiturates. In comparison, oxazepam only has a "fatal toxicity index" of 2.3 (1.2 to 3.4 range). Not all benzodiazepines are the same. Some are far more prone to cause death in overdose (temazepam is the deadliest, but nitrazepam, flunitrazepam, and triazolam are others aswell).

As for the opioids, well it's common knowledge that the most commonly used/prescribed opioids are the ones that have the highest OD rates - morphine/heroin (I place these together since they are essentially the same drug), oxycodone, fentanyl, hydrocodone, codeine, propoxyphene, and methadone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.69.193 (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not a doctor, but I am an RN (with 12 years of experience). I understand what you are saying and I think you are right - we should keep that detailed overdose information on the pages of the different class of drugs. But I'm not giving any medical advice, I am merely stating scientific fact. Studies conducted on the relative toxicity of benzodiazepines have consistently come up with the same results - temazepam the most lethal (followed by other hypnotics such as flunitrazepam, triazolam, nitrazepam, etc) and oxazepam and chlordiazepoxide (along with some of the other anxiolytics like clorazepate, tetrazepam, prazepam, etc) the least lethal or least likely to cause an overdose.

That little bit you gave me about alprazolam is one study? Studies proving temazepam's toxicity relative to other benzos have been corroborated many times over. But no such thing with alprazolam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.69.193 (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Go here: http://www.bmj.com/content/310/6974/219.full and read. There are other similar studies which corroborate these findings. The link you gave me stating alprazolam is the "most toxic" is just one. It does not have a single corroborating study and to top it off the study was conducted in Australia, where temazepam is less commonly prescribed due to restrictions on it. As far as I know, temazepam is in a more restrictive schedule in Australia then is alprazolam. So there very well could've been very few temazepam or flunitrazepam addmissions due to the fact that they are not prescribed the way diazepam, alprazolam, lorazepam, and some other benzos are prescribed. There is a serious temazepam abuse epidemic in Australia (or at least there was), so the study is flawed. Every other study on benzo toxicity has consistently placed temazepam, flunitrazepam, triazolam, and nitrazepam as the most toxic - with temazepam by far leading the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.69.193 (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A thought

James, what would you think of proposing implementation of MEDRS as a BLP-like policy instead of a guideline? This might help clean up some of our more obscure medical articles, and would be more enforceable. Ronk01 talk 14:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think this is a great idea. Having lesser quality evidence potentially exposes people to harm.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a proposal should be formed, and presented to members of WP:MED where we could establish local consensus before bringing this to the community? Ronk01 talk 21:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

Thank you for agreeing to participate in mediation in the past. We don't seem to be able to resolve this "bone of contention" on our own. I will be requesting formal mediation on the lead of the TM article, specifically this sentence, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education." Please let me know if you wish to be included, or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Sure but this is a content issue and thus probably best dealt with by a RfC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire treatment section of the psoriatic arthritis article is devoid of references. thanks for deleting my contributions---smart solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stella inu (talk • contribs) 00:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement notification

A request per Arbitration Enforcement has been filed here. [1](olive (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

WP:BOOMERANG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Schizophrenia FAR

Doc, Malleus has had bad experiences at FAR so doesn't go there, but I begged him to do a copyedit there, and he's done a ton of work so far. Would you be able to take a look at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Begging? Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Speedy deletion request

Greetings. I put in Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dental Medicine Arad for AfD, but only later did I realise that the whole thing is a copyvio, directly lifted from [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. Would it be possible for you to just delete it, given the copyright infringement the page represents? - Biruitorul Talk 04:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed and done. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Closed the AfD, remembered why I usually do not work AfD patrol. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any medical students? Edit in this topic area primarily... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Questionable Article

Hey Doc James can you please look over this article I stumbled upon, Menstrual psychosis. While there are sources something about the article dosen't seem right. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 01:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It does look a bit odd, but the concept is supposedly valid. There is a review article available on PubMed if you're interestedRonk01 talk 01:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I will go look at it. Thanks. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
We have a review article here PMID:9638603 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dialysis machine

Hello. I read that you carry a camera. Is there a dialysis centre where you work? The article would love an image. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure will get some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011



This is the first issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program newsletter. Please read it! It has important information about the the current wave of classes, instructions and advice, and other news about the ambassador program.



Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Abortion

Hi James, would you have another look at this edit of yours and consider if you actually want to insert text from a primary source, when it doesn't seem to have been reflected in secondary sources yet. Also, as I explained to Ritterhude, the Abortion article is in summary style, and that section is templated with {{main}} which indicates it is a summary of Abortion and mental health. It is inappropriate to include novel conclusions that are not covered in the daughter article, otherwise it's not a summary, is it? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a really good primary research study published in a major journal. Thus will I almost never use primary research thus study may be appropriate. Will look at it further. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks James. I have no quibble with the quality of the research, nor of the journal. But I worry about opening the door to fringe theorists flooding the article with low quality sources, by using this primary as a justification for accepting any primary source. This article, in particular, has a need to insist on secondary sourcing wherever possible. I fully expect the results of good quality primary studies to be picked up by the review cycle, and then we would have a secondary source to refer to. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry... probably should have notified you of the appeal.(olive (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

No worries. It is one of the things I already keep an eye on. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Well suported content from Times Of India newpaper & IIT-Bombay

Regarding the topic : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#.22Active.22_ingredients

This is a very recent study made, using state of art modern electron transmission microscopy they have proved that very highly diluted homoeopathic medicines retain nano-particles of original substance Study by India's most reputed Institute IIT-Bombay(Indian Institute Of Technology), this was published by times of india, indias largest distributed english news paper and was published by medical journal of Elsevier publication(a world known medical books publishers) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/IIT-B-team-shows-how-homeopathy-works/articleshow/7108579.cms

I am a new to wiki.., need your help in taking this fact forward, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah.milan.p (talk • contribs) 19:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

answered Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about deleting :"Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dental Medicine Arad"

Hello... I`m a new user and i`v tried to create the page about "Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dental Medicine Arad", you have deleted the page because of the copyright infringement. You said that i can recreate the page with my own words! this is the only way to do that? what if i get a permission from the site owner`s to use the text from their site? if yes please tell me what kind of permission i need? My second question: can i use pictures from the same site? or i cant use any information from the official faculty site? And what you mean by using an appropriate source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarayousef (talk • contribs) 00:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Thank you a lot for help... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarayousef (talk • contribs) 23:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Article

If you plan to write another article in the future I would be greatly interested in contributing to it. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if my posting of those links seemed like any sort of promotion (I'm assuming that's what you were getting at). I myself am in no way affiliated with that site, just somewhat enamored with the information. While one could bat back and forth with another about the 100% validity of the information (which could be done even with something such as a textbook), it's put forth in ways a laymen can comprehend. I'd also like to note they don't have any product they're pushing, solely information. Was there an issue here I'm not quite seeing? Again, I'm sorry about any sort of malicious intent that may have been apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.98.237 (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Syphilis

I think you should reconsider un-protecting Syphilis. This kind of stuff—[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]—is why we protected it in the first place. Juvenile vandalism doesn't care whether the article is adequately supplied with inline citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree. I though I would give it a chance. But obviously it needs indef protection. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

AE request concerning Isonomia

Hi, just to make you aware before you file all the paperwork: for the reasons noted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Isonomia, I believe that a discretionary sanction cannot be imposed at this time because the user was not properly notified of possible sanctions.  Sandstein  23:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you yes agree on procedural grounds. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Dengue

Hey James, I'm just going through the recommendations that Colin (talk · contribs) made on Talk:Dengue fever. I am increasingly of the view that we need to move "classification" down in the section order, and make an editorial decision to override WP:MEDMOS in this instance. I have clarified my position on the talkpage.

After Colin is done, do you think you available to bring the article up to FAC? Casliber certainly seems to think that it shouldn't be a big deal, and we've got some backing from GrahamColm also (but I'm keeping in mind my experiences with thyrotoxic periodic paralysis). JFW | T@lk 22:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a viral hemorrhagic fever specialist, so I might be able to help. Ronk01 talk 22:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Self-harm

The Self-Harm Awareness Barnstar
For everything you have done in expanding and maintaining the self-harm page over the past year. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 18:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey doc, you may be interested in this conversation. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 03:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Am away for a bit. Would add my two sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

User:7mike5000

Hi James. This user has requested unblocking, and asked if I would mentor him. I've started a thread at WP:AN/I#Unblock request. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This was an unpleasant incident. Mike had problems with WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS and WP:DUE. One of the things needed would be only the use of review articles in his work. Some of the pages on differential diagnosis with there extensive use of primary sources are a little unbalanced.
He seems by his own admission a little too close to the topics he was working on. Some degree of detachment is required by editors IMO before they can write in NPOV. I would be okay with his unblocking upon the condition that he not edit in the area of mental health for at least 6 month to a year to get a better understanding of wiki policy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Most male editors I encounter on Wikipedia have mental health problems, including me. I'd appreciate it if you didn't discriminate against this user because of his candor. I agree he needs to have his nose rubbed in WP:MEDRS, but for a relative beginner, I think he was doing pretty well. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not discriminating and this was a little more than "candor". I did say I am okay with him being unblocked just feel he should spend a little time editing in a less controversial area before returning to mental health topics. I feel that this would be best for him personally and the encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the candor of his unblock request. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay thanks for the clarification.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I understand what you're saying. He should stay away from articles he has an emotional investment in while he learns collaboration and policy in a less heated environment. I'll put your suggestion to him. Sorry for the discrimination comment. I wrongly perceived you using his talk page disclosures against him. --Anthonyhcole 17:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Mike likes your idea. [14] Would you like to propose something at the ANI thread? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the way you are responding to this unblock request is magnificent. If I'm out of line at any point, please tell me immediately. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

While we do need more editors. Hopefully this will work out. I am sure Mike is a good guy. Hopefully we can get him to spend some time monitoring recent changes and reverting vandalism :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_15&oldid=1142458830"