User talk:Doc James/Archive 145
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Doc James. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 140 | ← | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | Archive 146 | Archive 147 | → | Archive 150 |
Mendelian traits in humans
Hi, Doc James, could I ask you to take a look at Mendelian traits in humans? It's a fairly prominent medicine-related article, and it's in terrible shape right now—the major source is a circular reference to Wikipedia. Cheers, gnu57 03:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Reverted edit Typhus
Hi, Thank you for providing me with the link. I understand Wikipedia's editing process, and fail to see how the addition I included to the "Typhus" page does not meet the criteria. If mentioning that a city attorney was infected at the LA city hall is acceptable, why is mentioning the retaliatory measures taken against her for reporting it not appropriate? The article frequently notes the locations of typhus outbreaks: "Since the late 20th century, cases have been reported in Burundi, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Algeria, and a few areas in South and Central America.". LA has had an issue with typhus for at least the past three years. Demoting an employee for speaking publicly about an infection acquired at her office is prima facie evidence of suppression, and by adopting that editorial position on Wikipedia, we only add to the bandwagon of city officials who view this as a "third world" stigmatized disease.
(And if your concern is about disclosing unauthorized personal information, it's also important to note that the individual in question has herself publicly said that her role has been changed without consent, and that she views it as retaliatory)
2601:18F:4101:4830:84AE:8A7:F60A:8BAB (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Which ref says this was retaliatory? I think there is too much emphasis on this one case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Would you not agree that an individual being demoted immediately upon speaking of a compromising issue is sufficient to establish retaliation? 2601:18F:4101:4830:84AE:8A7:F60A:8BAB (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Can you provide the ref that says that? Still not convinced it is notable for the disease itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
In your revision of my edit, your removed the other four sources that cited. She has only recently spoken out as I understand it. While she remains a city attorney, she was transferred from a highly prestigious position within the city attorneys office defending multi-million dollar litigation cases, to an position as a prosecutor for misdemeanor crimes at the airport. She clearly stated this in a radio interview that took place last week, the transcript of which I will try to find for you if you'd like. As currently written, this article inaccurately stigmatizes typhus as a disease occurring ONLY in less developed countries. The environment surrounding the Los Angeles city hall has fallen to a state which is as conducive to the emergence of this disease as anywhere else: open defecation/urination, uncollected garbage, and the associated rodents attracted by these factors. 2601:18F:4101:4830:84AE:8A7:F60A:8BAB (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Lyme and Alzheimer's
Hi, I know you are a doctor and have edited on both pages. I wonder if you have heard of the link between the 2 diseases. According to some theories I read (I am interested in microbiology) Lyme bacteria can be detected in Alzheimer's brains. Lyme bacteria have been shown to trigger amyloid and tangle formation in neuron cultures. Some are even beginning to think that amyloid and tau may be protective host responses against oxidative stress, although it can eventually starve the cells if too much is present. There is also evidence that once amyloid forms in the brain after concussion, it is usually cleared over the course of several years, contrary to the theory that it just progressively accumulates. below are some links. For more information you can also look up Dr Alan Mcdonald's videos on Alzheimer's and the Lyme connection. He is the one who "opened my eyes" to the connection in a PBS documentarySpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15894409
https://globallymealliance.org/pathogen-cause-alzheimers-disease/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2765711/
- Seeing that AD occurs just as often in regions of the world were Lyme does not occur I am skeptical User:Spidersmilk.
- An incredible claim such as that would require incredibly good references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
True, but there are other pathogens such as Treponema denticola bacteria related to Lyme and Syphilis and also viruses like HSV that are also linked. These pathogens are all over the world. There does not have to be a specific spirochete or even a specific pathogen, it could be a nonspecific reaction. I just thought you would like to read some research, as a growing number of biomedical researchers are having serious doubts about the validity of the amyloid hypothesis.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Implementation of January 2018 change to the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use
Hello Doc. I was recently pursuing WP:PAID and took note of the link to the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use in regards to editors being required to provide links to websites on which they advertise paid editing services. I noticed that Meta-Wiki has a policy page [3] regarding the rule, and also note the respective RFC to implement said policy was closed as with a (admittedly rocky) consensus to adopt the change. I also noted that in the year since the RFC concluded that no change has been made to the actual WMF terms of use. What there another issue that block the implementation of the change? Just curious, and asking you as I am unfamiliar with editing on the Meta-Wiki. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:SamHolt6 making a change to the TOU just for this one small change was deemed unneeded at this time. Next time the TOU is updated I imagine this will be added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I see; I guess it is a good thing the project's TOU are not updated regularly. Does this mean that the WikiMedia policy is in effect, then? It is backed by the RFC conclusion, but I am concerned if an editor were to request a paid editor make the necessary disclosure the latter would be able to use the current terms of use as a defense. To put it more bluntly; does the MetaWiki policy page have any teeth?--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes people are required to follow our policies. What sort of "teeth" were you hoping to use it for? It does not dramatically change much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing overly dramatic; reading the RfC, it is clear that the policy should not be used as a means to intimidate editors. I was curious as recently I commented at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#An_Awareness_Note asking about the way in which this part of WP:PAID should be enforced. Now that this has been clarified I am more confident in my citing of this policy, and will be able to inform several disclosed paid editors about their need to maintain links to sites they advertise on. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:SamHolt6 If someone is involved in undisclosed paid editing and refuses to disclose we can block them already.
- The WMF TOU[4] says "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation"
- And than says "or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure."
- So it specifically says community policies do apply. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Undisclosed paid editing is an issue as always, but my main reason for ensuring this policy can be cited is that there are several reasonably successful disclosed paid editors (many denote that have been "hired via Upwork" in the course of their disclosures) whom have not yet made the necessary links to their advertising on off-wiki sites. This is likely due to ignorance of the policy, but they should still be informed of it and brought into compliance. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes of course, informed is perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Undisclosed paid editing is an issue as always, but my main reason for ensuring this policy can be cited is that there are several reasonably successful disclosed paid editors (many denote that have been "hired via Upwork" in the course of their disclosures) whom have not yet made the necessary links to their advertising on off-wiki sites. This is likely due to ignorance of the policy, but they should still be informed of it and brought into compliance. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing overly dramatic; reading the RfC, it is clear that the policy should not be used as a means to intimidate editors. I was curious as recently I commented at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#An_Awareness_Note asking about the way in which this part of WP:PAID should be enforced. Now that this has been clarified I am more confident in my citing of this policy, and will be able to inform several disclosed paid editors about their need to maintain links to sites they advertise on. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes people are required to follow our policies. What sort of "teeth" were you hoping to use it for? It does not dramatically change much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I see; I guess it is a good thing the project's TOU are not updated regularly. Does this mean that the WikiMedia policy is in effect, then? It is backed by the RFC conclusion, but I am concerned if an editor were to request a paid editor make the necessary disclosure the latter would be able to use the current terms of use as a defense. To put it more bluntly; does the MetaWiki policy page have any teeth?--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:SamHolt6 making a change to the TOU just for this one small change was deemed unneeded at this time. Next time the TOU is updated I imagine this will be added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
PMC
Hello, do you know if free full-accessible PMC articles such as this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1769573/ are in public domain? I tried to find the answer but still being uncertain. Thank you. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Says "Copyright © Copyright 2002 Journal of Clinical Pathology" So appears to be no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oh! I see. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Says "Copyright © Copyright 2002 Journal of Clinical Pathology" So appears to be no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Doc, I appreciate your edits on the article. However, I am still working through it, may I please finish before you revise what I edit? We may be doing redundant work. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:I enjoy sandwiches left some notes on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Breathing problem
I guess there already exists an article introducing breathing problem on Wikipedia? If so, would you kindly help redirect to the correct article? Thanks. I am not sure if that red link should be redirected to respiratory distress. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not a perfect match but can redirect to Shortness of breath for now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Implementation of January 2018 change to the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use
Hello Doc. I was recently pursuing WP:PAID and took note of the link to the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use in regards to editors being required to provide links to websites on which they advertise paid editing services. I noticed that Meta-Wiki has a policy page [5] regarding the rule, and also note the respective RFC to implement said policy was closed as with a (admittedly rocky) consensus to adopt the change. I also noted that in the year since the RFC concluded that no change has been made to the actual WMF terms of use. What there another issue that block the implementation of the change? Just curious, and asking you as I am unfamiliar with editing on the Meta-Wiki. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:SamHolt6 making a change to the TOU just for this one small change was deemed unneeded at this time. Next time the TOU is updated I imagine this will be added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I see; I guess it is a good thing the project's TOU are not updated regularly. Does this mean that the WikiMedia policy is in effect, then? It is backed by the RFC conclusion, but I am concerned if an editor were to request a paid editor make the necessary disclosure the latter would be able to use the current terms of use as a defense. To put it more bluntly; does the MetaWiki policy page have any teeth?--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes people are required to follow our policies. What sort of "teeth" were you hoping to use it for? It does not dramatically change much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing overly dramatic; reading the RfC, it is clear that the policy should not be used as a means to intimidate editors. I was curious as recently I commented at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#An_Awareness_Note asking about the way in which this part of WP:PAID should be enforced. Now that this has been clarified I am more confident in my citing of this policy, and will be able to inform several disclosed paid editors about their need to maintain links to sites they advertise on. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:SamHolt6 If someone is involved in undisclosed paid editing and refuses to disclose we can block them already.
- The WMF TOU[6] says "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation"
- And than says "or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure."
- So it specifically says community policies do apply. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Undisclosed paid editing is an issue as always, but my main reason for ensuring this policy can be cited is that there are several reasonably successful disclosed paid editors (many denote that have been "hired via Upwork" in the course of their disclosures) whom have not yet made the necessary links to their advertising on off-wiki sites. This is likely due to ignorance of the policy, but they should still be informed of it and brought into compliance. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes of course, informed is perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Undisclosed paid editing is an issue as always, but my main reason for ensuring this policy can be cited is that there are several reasonably successful disclosed paid editors (many denote that have been "hired via Upwork" in the course of their disclosures) whom have not yet made the necessary links to their advertising on off-wiki sites. This is likely due to ignorance of the policy, but they should still be informed of it and brought into compliance. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing overly dramatic; reading the RfC, it is clear that the policy should not be used as a means to intimidate editors. I was curious as recently I commented at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#An_Awareness_Note asking about the way in which this part of WP:PAID should be enforced. Now that this has been clarified I am more confident in my citing of this policy, and will be able to inform several disclosed paid editors about their need to maintain links to sites they advertise on. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes people are required to follow our policies. What sort of "teeth" were you hoping to use it for? It does not dramatically change much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I see; I guess it is a good thing the project's TOU are not updated regularly. Does this mean that the WikiMedia policy is in effect, then? It is backed by the RFC conclusion, but I am concerned if an editor were to request a paid editor make the necessary disclosure the latter would be able to use the current terms of use as a defense. To put it more bluntly; does the MetaWiki policy page have any teeth?--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:SamHolt6 making a change to the TOU just for this one small change was deemed unneeded at this time. Next time the TOU is updated I imagine this will be added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
PMC
Hello, do you know if free full-accessible PMC articles such as this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1769573/ are in public domain? I tried to find the answer but still being uncertain. Thank you. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Says "Copyright © Copyright 2002 Journal of Clinical Pathology" So appears to be no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oh! I see. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Says "Copyright © Copyright 2002 Journal of Clinical Pathology" So appears to be no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Doc, I appreciate your edits on the article. However, I am still working through it, may I please finish before you revise what I edit? We may be doing redundant work. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:I enjoy sandwiches left some notes on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Breathing problem
I guess there already exists an article introducing breathing problem on Wikipedia? If so, would you kindly help redirect to the correct article? Thanks. I am not sure if that red link should be redirected to respiratory distress. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not a perfect match but can redirect to Shortness of breath for now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Another PMC article yet with CC copyright tag this time
This article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409172/ claiming "Copyright © 2007 Informa UK Ltd.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.". I think the content of this article can be copied and pasted to Wikipedia with proper reference tag. How do you think? Thanks. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 14:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes that is correct. That is under a CC BY license. Please remember that the content will need to be rewritten in easier to understand language and formatted properly for WP. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! I will! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes that is correct. That is under a CC BY license. Please remember that the content will need to be rewritten in easier to understand language and formatted properly for WP. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe Pathological_cold_reactive_antibodies is notable and the reviewer also reviewed this article. Now a user called Wolfch still added a notability template to the article lately. How should I do and what do you think? Thank you! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Why separate from Cold agglutinin disease? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the article also discussed over other cold reactive antibodies like Donath-Landsteiner antibodies and Cryoglobulins antibodies. It's more of talking about the nature of those antibodies rather than the diseases they cause. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 04:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay I see. Refs need to go after punctuation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Did you mean if I move all refs to follow the punctuation, the article will be notable? I didn't know the place of refs before or after the punctuation can affect an article's notability. @_@ Sorry but is it a common practice of resolving the notability issue on Wikipedia? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 04:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not required for notability. Just commenting on other issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, I see. In fact I was taught by another user to let refs go before punctuation. That's why I sometimes put it before the punctuation. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 04:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not required for notability. Just commenting on other issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Did you mean if I move all refs to follow the punctuation, the article will be notable? I didn't know the place of refs before or after the punctuation can affect an article's notability. @_@ Sorry but is it a common practice of resolving the notability issue on Wikipedia? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 04:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay I see. Refs need to go after punctuation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
When one does a search for that exact name on google only the WP article comes up.[7]
Is there a better name? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think cold antibodies or cold reactive antibodies is more common. But I am not sure if all the cold reacting antibodies can cause illnesses so I added "pathological" --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 04:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Is there a ref that discusses these terms together? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Likely not. At least I couldn't find one in a short time. I noticed the notability on Wikipedia is to ask article to cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. The refs in the article already significantly coverage the pathological cold reactive antibodies in-depth. I think the notability rule is not telling us to focus our attention to care about the title name. These cold antibodies are discussed in refs mostly because they're pathological. But it doesn't mean all the cold antibodies are pathological in my opinion. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 04:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- If no one uses the term "Pathological cold sensitive antibodies" why are we? We need a ref for the existence of that name for this group of conditions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- These refs generally mention that there are three major types of cold antibodies that are pathological. However, it can be too long to be an article's title on Wikipedia. In brief, I simplified major types of cold antibodies that are pathological to Pathological cold antibodies --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 05:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Why not move it to "cold antibodies" than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Good idea. How about Cold pathological antibodies? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 05:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- You may as well discuss briefly the none pathological ones in the same article if there are any? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think I might spend time to look into non pathological ones if I have time. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 05:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Moved and removed the template. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 05:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Does this group have an ICD 10 or 11 code? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe it should? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 05:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay we should really have a name that has an ICD11 code. Which current name best matches? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Since it's an article about the antibodies that cause autoimmune hemolytic disease. It's unlikely there exists such codes for the antibodies rather than the diseases they cause. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay we should really have a name that has an ICD11 code. Which current name best matches? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe it should? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 05:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Does this group have an ICD 10 or 11 code? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- You may as well discuss briefly the none pathological ones in the same article if there are any? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Good idea. How about Cold pathological antibodies? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 05:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Why not move it to "cold antibodies" than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- These refs generally mention that there are three major types of cold antibodies that are pathological. However, it can be too long to be an article's title on Wikipedia. In brief, I simplified major types of cold antibodies that are pathological to Pathological cold antibodies --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 05:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- If no one uses the term "Pathological cold sensitive antibodies" why are we? We need a ref for the existence of that name for this group of conditions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Likely not. At least I couldn't find one in a short time. I noticed the notability on Wikipedia is to ask article to cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. The refs in the article already significantly coverage the pathological cold reactive antibodies in-depth. I think the notability rule is not telling us to focus our attention to care about the title name. These cold antibodies are discussed in refs mostly because they're pathological. But it doesn't mean all the cold antibodies are pathological in my opinion. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 04:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Is there a ref that discusses these terms together? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| Many thanks for your assistance by far! It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC) |
AIHA
In AIHA, why the abbreviation also stands for Warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia? Shouldn't it be WAIHA? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 19:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Usually called simple "Autoimmune hemolytic anemia" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, so I gonna leave only auto-immune hemylytic anemia on that disambiguation page since auto-immune hemylytic anemia already covers WAIHA. Feel free to let me know if you've other ideas. Regards. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 19:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Usually called simple "Autoimmune hemolytic anemia" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Melatonin et al.
I was trying to merge an orphan article Melatonin treatments for major depressive disorder and did not do it in one step. Didn't check the references and do not have an opinion about the merits of the article. Perhaps it should be deleted or reduced to a line or two with appropriate references. An interesting drug that affects melatonin in the brain is Agomelatine, which is, according to the article, a melatonin receptor agonist, and, I think, prescribed in Europe. I added the section on melatonin in plants some time ago and find it interesting topic, but I will leave the current version alone. Tachyon (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering, more for future article reference purposes than anything else, why you kept the links to the Stamford and Boston Uni websites but not the UK National Amyloidosis Centre. I've used both the Boston and NAC websites for real-life reference purposes so I was wondering why those two over the NAC. Thanks. Red Fiona (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Redfiona99 have removed the other two aswell as mostly just adverting themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Question
James, recently another user posted the following statement on my talk page: "Today for many articles, you added content supported by alternative medicine sources, none of which are reliable. Alternative medicine is quackery - we don't cite such sources for medical content on the encyclopedia. Please don't do this." I am having difficulty in understanding exactly where we draw the line about this. If a specific therapy is discussed in a well referenced review article that has been heavily cited by other sources, I feel like it has established a degree of consensus. Is my understanding incorrect? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Which review are we talking about and what text was it supporting? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think I worked it out. A second question. In the Parkinson's disease article your intro statement is: "Parkinson's disease (PD) is a long-term degenerative disorder of the central nervous system that mainly affects the motor system.[1] Non-motor symptoms, however, become increasingly common as the disease worsens." Would you be amenable to slightly adjusting it to: "Parkinson's disease (PD) is a long-term degenerative disorder of the central nervous system that mainly affects the motor system, with non-motor symptoms becoming increasingly common as the disease worsens." I think it flows slightly better. What do you think? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Am easy either way. One flows better. The other we end of with a longer sentence that can be harder to parse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. I will let it sit and come back to the article after a bit and see how it feels. I do feel it is important to include the second sentence as that is a part of the disease course that is often neglected. Also one last question, I remember back in the early 2010s there used to be a search engine tool that we used to look up a journal's impact factor and article notability based on citations, etc. Do you know if this is still being used and thought of as reliable? I am using Google scholar but am finding it to be limited, It is my understanding that Web of Science's h-index and impact factors are more commonly used and accepted in the scientific community, but is this something we use here? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I just use google. For major journals it works well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ok thank you. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I just use google. For major journals it works well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. I will let it sit and come back to the article after a bit and see how it feels. I do feel it is important to include the second sentence as that is a part of the disease course that is often neglected. Also one last question, I remember back in the early 2010s there used to be a search engine tool that we used to look up a journal's impact factor and article notability based on citations, etc. Do you know if this is still being used and thought of as reliable? I am using Google scholar but am finding it to be limited, It is my understanding that Web of Science's h-index and impact factors are more commonly used and accepted in the scientific community, but is this something we use here? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Am easy either way. One flows better. The other we end of with a longer sentence that can be harder to parse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think I worked it out. A second question. In the Parkinson's disease article your intro statement is: "Parkinson's disease (PD) is a long-term degenerative disorder of the central nervous system that mainly affects the motor system.[1] Non-motor symptoms, however, become increasingly common as the disease worsens." Would you be amenable to slightly adjusting it to: "Parkinson's disease (PD) is a long-term degenerative disorder of the central nervous system that mainly affects the motor system, with non-motor symptoms becoming increasingly common as the disease worsens." I think it flows slightly better. What do you think? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Which review are we talking about and what text was it supporting? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Measles article
I noticed that you reinserted the reference to the article "Antibiotics for preventing complications in children with measles (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.) in the Measles article yesterday.
I had removed it because it didn't support the sentences which it was linked from.
I believe this article is not suitable for referencing in the Measles page in general, because the article says "In this review, we included seven clinical trials; studies were of poor quality except for one RCT," and "The quality of evidence is poor" (as I also wrote in my removal comment).
Could you explain why you reinserted the reference?
Stephanwehner (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:Stephanwehner are you arguing that it is not one of the leading causes of vaccine preventable deaths?
- Here we have another document which supports.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
No, I am not arguing that it is not one of the leading causes of vaccine preventable deaths at all.
I am suggesting that citing that article is not useful, because of the quotes you can see above: the article says "In this review, we included seven clinical trials; studies were of poor quality except for one RCT," and "The quality of evidence is poor". These are from the original article, "Antibiotics for preventing complications in children with measles." -- not from me.
A research article can have all kinds of results, and this is what the authors found. When the authors say "the quality of evidence is poor" -- that would refer to the quality of the evidence they found in the research that they are surveying. They describe in their article which research that is.
Please let me know what you think about this, because this is getting too long for my taste.
Did you read the article in question?
Stephanwehner (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:Stephanwehner systematic reviews that are looking at a specific question also contain background information. The bit about measles being one of the leading vaccine preventable causes of death was background rather than the specific question being looked at.
- Sure it is maybe not the best source for that statement. But the statement is correct and I have added a second source.
- If you feel that statement is wrong than happy to discuss further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
volume
As in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Stats/Top_medical_editors_2018_(all) can be very misleading - I do hope there is also at some stage some consideration of contribution to quality - I have a very faded and some vague memory of the issues that were raised in Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance about the problems quantity (?) and quality - maybe my memory is doing things with the general import - but it would be great to see something that doesnt look as if it ties in with the particularly metric obsessed aspect of being within the stats part of the projects - and somehow there might be something rewarded for improving understanding that might accompany the larger picture. Perhaps a fantasy. cheers, trust the new year has progressed beyond south american vistas JarrahTree 06:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:JarrahTree Yes measuring quality improvements is a much more difficult task. We of course have the GA/FA process and bringing a medical article through that process also typically results in recognition. Do you have further suggestions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- yes, but not here right now - I have very low faith in GA/FA in areas that I know about - thanks for replying. I just think volume metrics fail miserably in quite vital areas, I shall have to take time to respond to the issue. Thanks. JarrahTree 23:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:JarrahTree Yes measuring quality improvements is a much more difficult task. We of course have the GA/FA process and bringing a medical article through that process also typically results in recognition. Do you have further suggestions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
acral parts
Can be acral parts redirect tp extremities? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 23:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I think that would be fair. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
CLL update
May I ask you why you have just deleted my updates on CLL treatment? And you have even deleted not only my update but the whole section on ibrutinib: the now current standard of treatment for this disease! The part on CLL treatment is quite outdated and needs updating as current practice changes. If you have attended the latest ASH hematology congress in December you would know. Also alemtuzumab is practically no longer being used as there are better alternatives but you keep it on the top of the list of targeted treatments! Apparently you are not an expert on the topic and you should consult one before editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deyanyosifov (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I explained it on your talk page. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- You got a personal e-mail from me.Deyanyosifov (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sure will look in a bit. Away for another 2 days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- You got a personal e-mail from me.Deyanyosifov (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I explained it on your talk page. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Staying up late
Does there exist an article introducing "staying up late at night" on Wikipedia already? If not, what search query should I type in PubMed's search box to find the related studies? Thanks! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 21:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would say Night owl (person) User:It's gonna be awesome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Gratitude!--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 06:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- So is it okay to redirect staying up late to night owl (person)? And I found no studies regarding "night owl" on PubMed, do you have other recommended search queries to try? Many thanks! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 06:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would support that redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- So is it okay to redirect staying up late to night owl (person)? And I found no studies regarding "night owl" on PubMed, do you have other recommended search queries to try? Many thanks! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 06:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Gratitude!--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 06:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would say Night owl (person) User:It's gonna be awesome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- In my mom's definition, sleep time past 11 PM is being staying up late. And she always emphasize "staying up late at night" can devastate human health. In many times, we argued the definition of "staying up late" from our own perspectives. But our common ground is to follow the scientific evidence. However, I found it difficult to get such studies on PubMed. Probably because neithr of us is native English speaker. So is there any medical source talking about "the impact of health related to sleep time"? Any answer would be greatly appreciated. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 09:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Abnormal urine color
Can you review Abnormal urine color? The article's creator has been posting here, and I'm not familiar enough with MEDRS (or medicine in general) to know if it's plausible as a standalone article or should redirect to Urine#Color. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Looks okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)