Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Question on Med source (in vitro parasitological study on indigenous medicine)

Hi Doc James, hope you are not too busy to look at this one for me. I'm not sure of the sources used here: Fasciolopsis#Natural_Cure. They seem to be in vitro studies, but also are used to support the statement about the Khasi tribe, so I don't know if they are acceptable. Thanks, Ultra Venia (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree not one of the articles mentioned treatment of the disease. Thus removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 19:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: Welcome to the translation efforts

Hi, Doc! I'm a medical student and an admin at the Macedonian language wiki, and I'm really interested in helping in any way. I have experience in translating medical wiki-articles from English, so I can do just that. I see that there are two volunteers from ProZ.com, I should probably get in touch with them so that we can coordinate our efforts.

I'm just not clear on the whole "integration" thing. What does that mean? Just putting translated text on local wiki-pages, or something more? Is the translated text from ProZ wikified (with formatting, links, sources...)? Or is it just plain text that the integrator should work on before posting it on the local wiki? Can you please clarify this for me? (on my talk page, thanks). --Brainmachine (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Thanks for the input, but I'm not clear what you mean. I've been on Wikipedia for 7 years, so I think I'm aware of our basic policies and I try to follow them. Could you be more specific as to where you feel I've erred?--Yannick (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

replied on your talk page Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 21:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I believe you're looking for User:Nenpog who originally contributed the material to ionizing radiation. I will share some thoughts on the article talk page as well.--Yannick (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Contrast

I don't like the subtitle contrast. It is not an adverse effect, and doesn't tell anything to people who examine the table of content, about the real adverse effects in there that might be relevant to them e.g. if they are allergic, asthmatic, have renal failure, etc. Nenpog (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You could try a WP:RfC regarding this issue. It summarizes the issues that are related to contrast agents which are only used half the time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 06:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not familiar with WP:RfC, I will check what it is.
I understand that you are concerned that contrast is only used in half of the CTs, however, a title that include the words "due to contrast" (e.g. allergy due to contrast), would convey that that adverse effect is relevant only for contrast CTs. Alternatively, it is possible to have an other section 'Adverse affects of CT with contrast'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 06:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Typically we keep the headings short. Our readers our bright and I am sure can figure out what it means currently without any difficulties. You could ask others opinions on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 06:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
If they will read it, they will understand, but sometimes people just read the headline, and skip if the headline is not relevant to them. This especially if they will read on their inconvenient cellphone's small screen, and will want to read less and only what is most relevant.--Nenpog (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Post-concussion syndrome

Hi Doc James,

I put some issues on "Recent additions . . . Treatment section." The sources I found on medication for headache following a concussion do not seem to jar with what our article currently says. And there may well be other issues.

I do have my doubts that wikipedia is so stiff and so formal, how good a job do we really do in bringing medicine to the people? It is great working with an actual doctor like yourself and I wish you all the best, and I will continue doing my part of patiently going through professional publications, which I suppose is my strong point. I just don't know how good a job wikipedia's going to do as far as making medical information more accessible. I do kind of find myself hoping that you have other online projects going on and not just all your eggs in the one basket of wikipedia. A doctor who is willing to patiently explain things is a valuable resource indeed, and I thank you in advance for any time you have for post-concussion.

How big a distinction does recent professional publications draw between concussion and post-concussion syndrome? Per the single data point of the 2008 Consensus Statement, not very much. I want to look at a variety of other sources. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very extensively read. Much of it however needs substantial improvement. I am glad to see that you are interested. I will take a look for sources that deal specifically with post-concussion. I am sure there is plenty of room for improvement on that page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
To me it seems the social norm on wikipedia often ends up being to state things formally or abstractly, instead of just saying things in plain English. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

contrast new/old

I do not understand what is old/new in the contrast agent section. I think it would serve the readers better if they don't have to read the refs in order to figure that out. Please replace new/old with something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 06:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 15:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of paraphrase or quotes

I used the same quote method shown to me by editor Anthonyhcole. It's OK in scientific writing and encyc's. I see long quotes in my old encyclopedia britannica. Seems common in other articles here. I just read WP:MOS again (I had before) and didn't see where is says you can't quote a few short paragraphs as long as you use that box. Can you direct me to the section where what I did is prohibited?

I think when info is different from what lay people believe it's important to be precise as with exact pertinent quotes! I could shorten that quote box by half if you insist. Please advise.

I will try to paraphrase the quotes in breast cancer and mammography tomorrow if you insist, but in the meantime it's more important to be precise and make sure women know to NOT seek mammography screening so I undid your edits. Even saving one woman from mammogram screening is important based on those findings. Please help paraphrase if you insist, but please use the article(s) talk so others can see. I will go into Economist and find the source to quote directly in PSA if you require. Please advise.

The 2012 leaflet information is more up to date and complete than the 2011 Cochrane you mention. I'll use the 2011 you cite also, or instead of the 2008, if you want. Or how about only using the 2012 cochrane? 2012 covers it all and the US cochrane refers to the Nordic so it's not like we're referencing a bunch of vikings attacking medical dogma. Please advise.32cllou (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes please paraphrase and made sure it is not duplication of text already in the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

ICD11

Hi James, You might want to see what's become of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_Nations#Liason re license of UN texts on WMF projects, which would touch on the ICD11 licensing issue. Not sure if any progress has been made.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with adding translated content

Hi James,

Thank you that you informed me about this project [1]. I’ll keep it in mind Nikosguard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't use "popular press"

You deleted PSA info as not worthy being from the "popular press." I can't find those rules and see many instances of newspaper and periodical info in this encyc. Where can I find the guidelines?

I wait for your answers to my questions above about your blanket deletions before I paraphrase. Please help.32cllou (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 04:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "X-ray_computed_tomography". Thank you. --Nenpog (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, however you have received a great deal of feedback. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 04:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, however I want to see what someone who isn't committed against publication of adverse effects to CT in Wikipedia will think. --Nenpog (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Not supported wording in Mammography

So far, the first sentence in the second paragraph is not supported by the reference. As for the second sentence in that paragraph, 15% might be used, but women really want to know the "absolute risk reduction of 0.05%", and then all the harms not mentioned. Missing is the primary sentence saying "It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm." Please direct me to the source or reference the source otherwise those sentences must be removed.32cllou (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets converse on the PSA talk page more there.32cllou (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We should be conversing at the page on mammography really. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 00:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please double check my conclusions?

I am a dispute resolution volunteer at WP:DRN. Recently, at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#X-ray computed tomography, I came to some conclusions of a medical nature. Being an engineer, I am concerned that I might have gotten them completely wrong. Would you be so kind as to look my conclusions over and let me know if I am getting it wrong? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That is more or less my take. All I have ever asked however is that everyone uses refs that are 1) high quality 2) specifically talk about the subject matter at hand and 3) with due weight. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 04:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Guy Macon, are you the mediator at the current discussion at the DRN?--Nenpog (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mammography

Hi James, regarding the conversation you're having with User:32cllou on Talk:Prostate-specific antigen and Talk:Mammography, I've included a link to the orginal talk page (PSA) for the benefit of other people looking at it (hope you don't mind). But other than that I don't plan to get involved, unless you want me too. Thanks Callanecc (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 15:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bell's Palsy Edits

I'm just trying to make sure that other people that have this condition are aware of the surgery option. My husband had it, all the doctor's kept telling him just wait and see, it should get better. Then we lucked into finding a specialist through one of his work friends, who evaluated him and told us about the surgery. If we hadn't gone in that day, it would not have been an option, as we were right at the two week limit. I never found anything on the web talking about this surgery, and I want to make sure that other people know about this option before it's too late for them.

I'm not sure how I can provide quality information, I tried quoting a specialist website, but that's not allowed, so I just paraphrased what I knew from our experience, and apparently that isn't qualified. What do I need to do to make sure others are aware of this option?

--MrsSerena (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I found a reference for the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 16:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable? http://www.utmb.edu/otoref/grnds/Bells-Palsy-2002-01/Bells-Palsy-2002-01.htm --MrsSerena (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hi, Doc James. I have implemented a different solution for the Mandell-Bennett-Dolin book that removes the repetition without using templates. You are right, most wikis do not have the {sfn} template yet, so it's not a good choice for this particular article. The article is in great shape. Good luck with your GA bid! -- Dianna (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dengue fever (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fatigues
Fasciolopsiasis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Toxemia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For humble patience in the face of personal attacks and repetitive arguments. Thank you for your work. Yannick (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 17:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed that picture because it freaks people out

I removed that picture because it freaks people out. And you must change it by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.86.165.172 (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure however that is not a justification to remove pictures. This is an encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 17:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how

The exact quote was what you objected to in that quote box with few sentences. Can you look back into that box? Or I can provide the page and para from the publication.32cllou (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC) I think higher risk of mastectomy from false positives from screening should be back in lead OK?32cllou (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Will look at it tomorrow. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 05:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll get the box and put it here for you. Next time I paraphrase i'll put the exact quote into the talk first.

"Screening with mammography uses X-ray to try to find breast cancer before a lump can be felt. The goal is to treat cancer early, when a cure is more likely. The review includes seven trials that involved 600,000 women who were randomly assigned to receive screening mammograms or not. The review found that screening for breast cancer likely reduces breast cancer mortality, but the magnitude of the effect is uncertain. Screening will also result in some women getting a cancer diagnosis even though their cancer would not have led to death or sickness. Currently, it is not possible to tell which women these are, and they are therefore likely to have breasts or lumps removed and to receive radiotherapy unnecessarily. The review estimated that screening leads to a reduction in breast cancer mortality of 15% and to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings."

"It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. Women invited to screening should be fully informed of both the benefits and harms. To help ensure that the requirements for informed consent for women contemplating whether or not to attend a screening program can be met, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages."

"Since the randomised trials were carried out, there have been important advances in diagnosis and treatment. This means that the effect of screening is smaller today. In fact, more recent, rigorous studies suggest that screening is no longer effective (1,9). Since the randomised trials were carried out, there have been important advances in diagnosis and treatment. This means that the effect of screening is smaller today. In fact, more recent, rigorous studies suggest that screening is no longer effective (1,9).

"Studies from the United States, Sweden and Norway suggest that half or more of the screen-detected cancers would have disappeared spontaneously, if they had been left alone, without any treatment at all (18). Most of the earliest cell changes found at screening (carcinoma in situ) are also harmless, as they would never have progressed into invasive cancer (5).

"Information on the internet, e.g. on cancer charity web sites, often omits the most important harms. Or they are described as benefits. For example, screening is said to reduce the risk that a woman loses her breast (1). This is not true. Because of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, screening increases the risk of mastectomy."

[1][2]32cllou (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

PS I'd like to put paraphrased "half or more of the screen-detected cancers would have disappeared spontaneously, if they had been left alone, without any treatment at all (18). Most of the earliest cell changes found at screening (carcinoma in situ) are also harmless, as they would never have progressed into invasive cancer (5)." back in so women don't worry so much. Stress harms.32cllou (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"Anaphylaxis" semi-protection

I see that you have semi-protected "Anaphylaxis" indefinitely. I have checked all of the IP edits since the beginning of March. I found only two vandalism edits. There was a vandalism edit by an IP editor on 10th April, and another on 9th May. (There were a couple of test edits and many good faith edits by IP editors.)

I am unable to tell if the article has been previously protected. If you are able to tell, I would appreciate it if you could inform me.

In any case, I believe that semi-protection of the article is inappropriate. (This reminds me of the article "Sinusitis".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I was looking back a little farther than the beginning of March. With respect to sinusitis, thankfully the bots are getting better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 00:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Still a small prb

The Cochrane 2012 [2] info says 10% reduction not 15% and that's negated by false positive harms anyway. Can we just do away w it?32cllou (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC) No sorry 10% in most reliable but they also use adjusted down unreliable to come to 15%32cllou (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Away for the next few days... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 01:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

herpes and lysine

Hi Jmh649, you posted "Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks". Actually, this is slightly backwards per WP:MEDRS: review articles come first, then come primary or secondary sources, then finally textbooks, which are considered tertiary sources, and are to be avoided if primary or secondary sources are available.

On the lysine section in the herpes article, I would cite a review article but a search turned up none. I examined every Pubmed article where the title contained "lysine" and "herpes", and in my edit, I cited two primary sources as defined by Wikipedia:MEDRS, one of which is blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study with p<0.05. Though I agree it's a small study that constitutes weak evidence, and another study that failed to duplicate the effect, I believe this evidence combined with in vitro evidence puts it a step above the "alternative medicines" category. There just haven't been any well-designed studies that refute the study that showed a significant effect. I've restored the section, adding a comment about how more evidence being needed before it can be recommended.

Finally, your comment on my talk page ended with "thanks and welcome to Wikipedia", which I interpreted as condescending given that I've been an editor for a couple of years longer than you. You might want to check edit history before "welcoming" someone to wikipedia. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes sorry about the text above, have removed. Will change that to "welcome to Wikipedia's medical article". With respect to Wikipedia's medical content, review articles are secondary source. They and major textbooks are preferred over primary sources per
For the page in question the content on L-lysine was supported by a review article. Our guideline specifically says that we do not use primary sources to refute secondary ones / review articles.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 16:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The 2001 Tomblin review I cited, Lysine for management of herpes labialis, is not refuted by the 2005 Beauman review you cited, Genital herpes: a review, as the former refers to herpes labialis, and the latter, genital herpes. Nor is it refuted by the Perfect et al review, which is also specific to genital herpes. Though more than 5 years old, the Tomblin review is the most current review on lysine for herpes labialis, and it should be treated as the best and most up-to-date source on the topic. Nowhere on MEDRS is a hard cutoff of 10 years specified: rather, it states that 5 years or less is best. Of course, I agree that 5 years or less would be best, but there is no more recent review article on herpes labialis, only ones on genital herpes. As l-lysine is unlikely to attract the significant funding needed for a large trial, I doubt that there will be any new research forthcoming, and in fact there are zero trials listed on clinicaltrials.gov using the search terms "herpes" and "lysine". I think we should acknowledge that there are numerous small-scale trials that support l-lysine's use in preventing herpes labialis outbreaks, per the Tomblin review. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Will take a look and discuss on the talk page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 21:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Journal

Just found your proposal for the Wikipedia Journal. I am very intersted. Im an English teacher at ITESM-CCM in Mexico City. Ive been promoting Wikipedia at my school and yesterday my boss asked me to think about creating some kind of class for our teachers and Wikipedia, so this might be very serendipitous! Will you be at Wikimania? Thelmadatter (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes and would love to meet and talk about this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 21:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Publishing the Dengue article

Hi James, thanks for the invitation. I agree in principal, but how are we going to cover the C$1500 publication charges? I personally – and reluctantly – paid $100 towards this one: Heilman JM, Kemmann E, Bonert M; et al. (2011). "Wikipedia: a key tool for global public health promotion". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 13 (1): e14. doi:10.2196/jmir.1589. PMC 3221335. PMID 21282098. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No cost for publication at this point. The journal is covering it and I have applied for funding from the Gates Foundation for future publications. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 18:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

My contribution, some copyediting and a review, was really done as a Wikipedian rather than a medic or researcher. So I think "User:Colin" is fine, or some variant that fits with the publication standards. If there's a problem with this then we can discuss on email. Colin°Talk 20:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Further to your (James) message on my talkpage, I have no problem using my real name as author if this ends up getting published. JFW | T@lk 23:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The person I am collaborating with is one of the editors of the journal. Thus we should not have too much difficulty. I will send you a copy before publication to make sure you are happy with it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 00:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Marvellous. JFW | T@lk 12:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

PSA supporting USPSTF quote

Hope you find this lead para OK: United States Preventive Services Task Force USPSTF (May 2012) recommends against patients being screened for prostate cancer using the prostate-specific antigen PSA test because the “potential benefit does not outweigh the expected harms.” PSA testing may help 1 in 1000 avoid death, but 4 to 5 would still die from prostate cancer after 10 years. Expected harms include anxiety for 100 – 120 receiving false positives, biopsy pain, potential (1/3 of biopsies) complications, and frequent overdiagnosis because most prostate cancer is asymptomatic for life. Men found to have prostate cancer usually (90%) elect to receive treatment; therefore for every 1000 men screened, 29 will experience erectile dysfunction, 18 will suffer urinary incontinence, 2 will have serious cardiovascular events, 1 will suffer pulmonary embolus or deep venous thrombosis, and 1 perioperative death. [3]

It's from this direct quote:

"Results of several large trials have shown that, at best, PSA screening may help 1 man in 1,000 avoid death from prostate cancer after at least 10 years. Most likely, the number helped is even smaller. This means that with PSA screening, 4-5 out of every 1,000 men will die from prostate cancer after 10 years.

Expected harms of screening

• False-positive results. About 100-120 of every 1,000 men screened receive a false-positive test. Most positive tests result in biopsy, and can cause worry and anxiety. Up to one-third of men undergoing biopsy will experience fever, infection, bleeding, urinary problems, and pain that they consider a moderate or major problem. One percent will be hospitalized for these complications.• Overdiagnosis. In most cases, prostate cancer does not grow or cause symptoms. If it does grow, it usually grows so slowly that it is not likely to cause health problems during a man’s lifetime. Currently, it is not possible to reliably distinguish indolent from aggressive cancers. Many cancers diagnosed would have remained asymptomatic for life and do not require treatment. • Overtreatment. Because of the uncertainty about which cancers need to be treated, 90 percent of men with prostate cancer found by PSA choose to receive treatment. Many of these men cannot benefit from treatment because their cancer will not grow or cause health problems. Harms of treatment include: Erectile dysfunction from surgery, radiation therapy, or hormone therapy (29 men affected per 1,000 men screened). Urinary incontinence from radiation therapy or surgery (18 men affected per 1,000 men screened). A small risk of death and serious complications from surgery:• 2 serious cardiovascular events per 1,000 men screened.• 1 case of pulmonary embolus or deep venous thrombosis per 1,000 men screened.• 1 perioperative death per every 3,000 men screened."32cllou (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Question about TWB-Wikipedia collaboration

Good morning James, can you please let me know if there is a agreed-upon way of inserting the translated articles into wikipedia? Presicely, when the translators are ready, who is receiving the text and who's creating the new page (if the relevant article didn't exist before)? I offered the possibility for the translators to create the new pages under their names, one of them likes the idea, the other doesn't. I don't want to choose for them, just would like to know if there's an agreement between us and TWB. Thanks! --Viktorhauk (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The agreement is that we will add the content in question and fix mediawiki markup problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 15:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi James, regarding reintegration, when I click on the "Complete" link, it asks me for a login, so I guess I need to get an account with ProZ. Thanks for your help, in any case!!! nice day, Viktorhauk (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lung cancer

I have more-or-less finished working on "Lung cancer". The references are secondary sources (with the exception of a few in the "History" section). I have replaced/deleted many old references. I have generally copy-edited the text and updated everything. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Will send it for translation.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 18:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you direct me of provide?

So, I couldn't sleep initially last night having watched this news on induced birth harm to children http://abcnews.go.com/Health/birth-37-38-weeks-linked-lower-math-reading/story?id=16683067#.T_MJqPVLFh6 since that's what prob happened to my neighbor wonderful kid but slow development and had scary breathing probs first year. Both prob due to induced like 34 weeks. Need to find the article talking about resperatory harm.

How can I get the Pediatrics and OBGYN Journal articles mentioned? Can I cite the ABC report to say states (Oregon and Arizona) and hospitals are moving to limit induced births to if there's proven high risk otherwise to mothers, or at least 39 weeks into pregnancy? I seem to remember that doctors aren't sure when a woman became pregnant, and will look for that too.32cllou (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like it is based on a primary source. We should try to use review articles or major textbooks. Would not use the ABC news article directly as they (the news) so often gets stuff wrong. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 18:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Whew! That was a close one!!

You will be happy to know that WP:COIN has determined that there is no evidence that either of us have a COI. In related news, we also did not assassinate Thomas D'Arcy McGee, Abraham Lincoln, or Julius Caesar. On the other hand, Jack the Ripper is still an open question; there are theories that involve surgical knowledge... (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. These sorts of issues occur on a fairly regular basis. Many thanks for getting involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 22:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dengue fever (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fatigue
Migraine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cervical artery dissection

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Article in Greek Wikipedia

Good evening. The sound you asked has been inserted into the article but please take into account that the article has been moved under the initial title without the initial article ("H") which is not necessary for the title. Thanks. --Ttzavaras (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks again. --Ttzavaras (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - just dropping by briefly

I've just logged in for the first time in a while, and saw your messages. I have not even visited those pages yet, but I'm glad to see that they are being maintained so actively and that editors will have an opportunity to be recognized. I'll decline due to various considerations, but I deeply appreciate the invitation and the thoughtfulness is reflects. Real life is particularly hectic, and value my anonymity here. -- Scray (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Numbers

You are correct in that generally numbers less than 10 are spelled out. However, the Manual of Style: Dates and Numbers states: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." This was my reason for the edits. --Dkevanko (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you replace with known journal same research instead of going round and round??

I was told by two editors responding to my Q in Teahouse that TED / Ornish WAS appropriate. I will provide the peer reviewed journal published research (note that TED is 2008) asap, but why don't / didn't you do that? I think the video is a better way to help users get the full value of the known facts. I didn't add the NYT it was there too prior. I have been told Teahouse that it's OK generally too. I removed it because it's old 2011, same group updated in 2012 stronger statement. I'll remover the NYT and replace with prior. Please leave the TED for a few days busy but will add journal research mentioned under study in the TED.32cllou (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have questions regarding references for medical content please ask at WT:MED. You are going to need a review article rather than a peer reviewed article. These two are NOT the same. We do not typically link to videos. 2011 is not old. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
TED is wiki usable. Remove only the single diet sentence if you must as I can replace it soon with his more recent published research. I want both as references with both best for info to users.32cllou (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Was also replacing the 2010 BMJ review and removing the NYTs [2]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Trwiki request

Hey James,

I am referring to your post on Turkish Wikipedia.

I'd be delighted to help. Feel free to send me a message whenever the need arises.

Cheers

Vito Genovese 09:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful many thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 09:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Swedish Wikipedia editing

Hello Jmh649. Your recent edit of the article sv:Krupp (virusinfektion) has led to a question and discussion over at the Swedish Village pump, "sv:Wikipedia:Bybrunnen, which I thought you should be aware of. From a quick look I understand that you're involved in an ambitious translation project, which is very commendable. However, your editing, while adding a lot of valuable substance, was seen as a bit heavy-handed. A comment which I liked was "Our common practice is that you improve articles by adding new parts of the existing article, and that you try to work them together, not that you do a completely new version, sweep away the previous one totally (even the interwiki links!) when you add a new version. Also, a new article should be completely translated before you enter it, which means that you shouldn't add text and tables in English". It was also commented that it is two completely different things to add missing articles (redlinks) based on translations from another language version - which would be very valuable - . On a personal note, I must say that I've found that it's seldom a good idea to do substantive edits (rather than e.g. adding interwiki links, images, categories...) in a language that you don't really command. Also, if you write over existing articles, you must be prepared to answer questions in the language of the article. However, since you're involved in a very ambitious project with a lot of potential also for Swedish Wikipedia, I'm not trying to say "stop editing the Swedish version" or anything like that, but rather wanted you to be aware that your edits caused raised eyebrows and that there may be a need to modify practices in order to improve content without losing existing information, which by the way may include a lot of valuable information even in very short articles. Best regards, Tomas e (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a local Wikipedian to integrate the translations. Wondering if you would be interested? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 09:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Tay–Sachs disease/GA1

I was wondering what the status of this review was. It has been ongoing for over two months at this point. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Pinging again. Most recent action on article and review was June 30; has this stalled irreversibly, or can it be completed? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop taking comments to my talk use the article talk instead

Your changes are OK, though the BMJ is out of date. You know that the test actually increases total mortality. (2 heart attacks and one operation related death for each one saved from prostate cancer.32cllou (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Screening for breast cancer with mammography | Cochrane Summaries". Retrieved 2012-06-24.
  2. ^ a b "Mammography-leaflet; Screening for breast cancer with mammography" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-06-24.
  3. ^ "Talking With Your Patients About Screening for Prostate Cancer" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-07-02.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_31&oldid=1142971190"