Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

Thanks Good point on migraines.

Thanks. I have a 29 yo daughter who has been suffering x 16 yrs. We did the acupuncture route because she wanted to try it and I assumed the role the good parent who wanted allow her to try everything (even though I was also the skeptic who read the literature and only expectation I had was to see $$ leave my wallet and I "won"). https://www.facebook.com/rglickman99 is my FB page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobglickman (talk • contribs) 19:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Suicide

Hi Doc James. Suicide is now a GA, but I suspect that it could make FA, (see Talk:Suicide/GA1). I see that it has been up at WP:FAC back in May 2005 but it should have a much better chance now. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just seen your comments and explanations on Talk:Suicide/GA1. There is no connection at all, but fairly recently I found out that 97 years ago a great-grand-uncle of mine had "some problems" and jumped over a railway bridge, was found and was taken to hospital with apparently minor injuries. The police arrested him and he died (over the weekend) in the cell whilst awaiting a court appearance (attempted suicide was still a crime then). I've never submitted a nomination at FAC, but I've helped with the inevitable "corrective actions" on just a few and I've reviewed a lot of GAs that have become FAs (not due to me, I'm not trying to take "their credit"). In my experience its quite a "painful process", arguments about prose, meaning of phrases, etc, more emphasis on the "process of writing" than "science". The choice is entirely yours, but if there are a few people at, say, a medical WP what where interested in doing so, its possibly a good way of highlighting the article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

White-washing CAM

Doc James how come you deleted all the evidence of efficacy for CAM interventions here [1]. It's a pretty obvious that this is tantamount to a massive white-wash of any evidence of effectiveness for any CAM intervention. You have a big COI and ignoring mainstream research of effectiveness on CAM interventions, what goes against your personal skepticism is not objective editing. Please refrain from doing so. Thanks! DVMt (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus should be obtained before adding all this material. It is already covered in other articles and this appears to be an attempt to create a co tract with material you have been unable to add elsewhere. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The material added was from yesterday on yoga, acupuncture, mind-body medicine and homeopathy. Evidence-based medicine is just not evidence we like. Why did you delete all the reviews that demonstrated the effectiveness of CAM at alt-med? You are purging every supportive review of any CAM intervention in addition to basic sciences research of those interventions. Your behaviour in this regard is troubling, for any editor but especially for an admin. Stay objective. DVMt (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
All you are required to do is get consensus for your changes. You have not done so. This is how Wikipedia works. This has been explained to you on the talk page. Please keep it their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Your objectivity has been compromised. We can hash it out here or we can end up in other forum. Choice is yours. DVMt (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
"Objectivity compromised?" "Hash it out?" DVMt, you really need to read WP:POT and WP:BATTLE -- Brangifer (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Check camera date

Hi. Your Canon PowerShot SD3500 might have a bad date set: File:Bloodculturetubes.JPG, uploaded on 2013-02-27, has a EXIF date of 2013-04-29. --Closeapple (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No idea how to change that but thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you left a message on my page, but I don't have any idea what it means. Regards. The Letter J (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This tag is not needed [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Triggering of Anorexia

As a young woman currently in treatment for anorexia nervosa, i can assure you that seeing an image of a person facing anorexia can most definitely reinforce feelings, which starts a negative feedback loop, and can cause symptoms to resurface or become more extreme.

108.15.67.98 (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think we discuss that. Have not really edited the article though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Schizophrenia

I haven't seen anything more recent than 2000. The schizophrenia data's part of a group of prevalence estimates I dug up recently when I saw the DALY maps of various mental disorders on Wikipedia, noticed that they generally concentrated in the least developed countries, and wondered if this could be because of medication issues and what real prevalence estimates might look like. Tezero (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This data varies strongly by population, so make sure you get it in terms of rates. But it does seem to make some sense, based on a little fuzzy mental math. It'd seem to explain, for example, why DALYs for bipolar disorder are as high in East Asia (barring Japan, which is part of the Oceania epidemiological region) as in Africa, even when the former is more developed and, presumably, has better medical care. Tezero (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

New Question: Would the following revision of the research section address the issues you raised?

While there is no cure for schizophrenia, research to learn more about the causes, progression, and treatment of the disease is ongoing. Current research directions include genetic association studies, discoveries of new animal models of the disease, and new drug development to treat the disease. The U.S. National Institutes of Health is currently recruiting for many human clinical trials involving patients with schizophrenia.[5] Additionally, large organizations like the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), and the Schizophrenia International Research Society (SIRS) are working with both government and private institutions to recruit and fund talented researchers studying schizophrenia and related mental illnesses.

In the last two decades, more than 50,000 studies on schizophrenia have been published.[3] In 2005, 12 schizophrenia researchers from the University of Minnesota and the Minneapolis Veteran's Administration compiled the findings from these articles to determine what fundamental facts were discovered from which scientific theories can be built today. Their work, published in the Schizophrenia Bulletin, summarizes what we now know about schizophrenia from research, and where more thought and data could have the greatest impact in our future understanding the disease.[4] Rmlewinson (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Refs do not work? Best to post this on the talk page at Schizophrenia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Linking

We typically don't? WP:NOTBROKEN? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hum thanks. Never seen that. It however does not say that people should be going and restoring links to redirects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, but no harm no foul. I think both your and Reatlas' edits could be categorized under "leave well enough alone." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Well I originally wrote much of the text in question and this was a requirement when I brought the article through GA. I do not see this as a policy suggesting that we change what is already written. I agree that we do not want people going around switching either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. The guideline lists several reasons why we shouldn't be link piping to avoid redirects, so why not change it to how it should have originally been made? Reatlas (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
There is some discussion here [3] Feel free to join in. These sorts of changes need consensus. I take this to mean that one should leave it the way the original person wrote it. Sort of like the British / American / Canadian spelling issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I still think that this is contrary to the point of WP:NOTBROKEN but fair enough, if you would rather the page be your way I do not think that this is a very significant issue worthy of argument. Reatlas (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks and I might stop adding these pipe links when I write the original content if they are not needed. Appreciate the link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

HIV page

I updated the page to add the recent research about HIV about the child who was cured after 2 1/2 years of treatment. I understand you are in charge of the page, and if you wish to find a better source for the information, I urge you do so. I belief this is important information relating to HIV and this will be a good contribution to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicturnips (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on the talk page as suggested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Interested in signing up for the translation task force

Hello Doc James,

I am an Intern from Calicut Medical College, a college in southern part of India. I am relatively new to wikipedia but really love editing articles. I am active in malayalam wiki as well (malayalam is my mother tongue). I was told about your translation task force by a previous member in the force from my region. I would really love to be a part of the effort.

Dileep Dileepunnikri (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. Are you interested in helping with translation? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Alternative medicine → Complementary and alternative medicine

Whassup doc? You'll no doubt be overjoyed at my decision to initiate this article move request. Relevant talk page discussion found here. As you previously suggested, I might notify WAID also. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Great work thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Interested in signing up for the translation task force

Yes Doc James,

I am interested in helping in translation. Please let me know further details. Or shall I just start by translating the listed 22 articles to my language?

Dileep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dileepunnikri (talk • contribs) 11:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ciprofloxacin

Tell me please due to your additional background as a doctor, would you consider a research referring to "ciprofloxacin" not applicable to discussion on "ciprofloxacin hydrochloride"? And, just to further and ensure this point further:

An editor has just provided this research on my talk page: http://journals1.scholarsportal.info/details-sfx.xqy?uri=/09277765/v88i0001/505_apniascd.xml which says: "Excellent colloidal stability and antimicrobial activity are important parameters for silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) in a range of biomedical applications."
It's talking about colloidal stability of silver nanoparticles. Only colloidal silver would have colloidal stability, right? Ryanspir (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. It is not a secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Gynecomastia

Hi Doc, I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out with this article. It's coming along nicely and I've been adding reliable secondary sources to it, but I feel like the organization of the article could use improvement and I believe you have more experience than I do in this aspect of improving articles. Please let me know either here or at my talk page if you have any interest in this project. Thanks. Sincerely, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Appreciate the help buddy. The article looks better. I'll continue to work on it in the meanwhile. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Will look at it further after I finish up one more task :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I may also need some help if you can manage it explaining why the description of neonatal gynecomastia on the page should remain as it is. User Richiez is trying to remove well-sourced information about the cause of neonatal gynecomastia and seems to be convinced that there is more at work than the transplacental transfer of hormones but has not provided any recent medical journal reviews to support this claim. I've also explained to him that gynecomastia is only in men and breast enlargement in women is called something else. This user is also attempting to add information about witch's milk phenomenon but the information needs better references in this context (it's only got a 1997 Lancet Article that seems more like an editorial or a letter than an actual publication). Richiez seems to think that the maternal transfer of hormones is insufficient to explain neonatal gynecomastia but has not provided other sources to add to the information and instead deleted it saying it was mentioned twice in the article. Just could use some extra eyes on it. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Now alteripse is attempting to fan the flames back up. Please have a look over there when you get the chance. I responded (trying to be civil/more neutral in tone) but it could definitely use your input since you're far more experienced than I. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

COI questions

Hey James, I'm wondering if you think this draft request for comment would prove fair and useful? User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 18:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

circumcision is primarily cultural not medical

Thank you for your advice on my talk page concerning your opinions on medical references for this article. However unlike medicine, circumcision is primarily a cultural act worldwide and, as such, not subject to the restrictions on its description that you doggedly seek to impose. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 16:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The big issue was your addition was completely unreferenced [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
your skim before revert must have missed the WHO reference. if the "big issue" was reference your raising yet again the medical in response was odd. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
"Per WHO" is not a ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I reviewed all of Tumad's article edits over the past year, and it appears Tumad. did not once cite a reference properly in that time, and nearly all article content changes did not even mention a source. Tumad. almost got it right here, although an admin had to revert it as a WP:COPYVIO problem. Maybe it's just an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy? At some point in the past I offered to help Tumad. with some basic Wikipedia process but my help was rejected, so I am sure Tumad. can figure this out for him/herself.

Regardless, even if the edit had been properly cited it would have been out of place where it was added. And it's a mistake to say "Circumcision is cultural therefore it isn't medical" because our sources indicate that circumcisions worldwide - including the ones chosen for cultural and not medical reasons - are largely performed by trained medical providers. Either way, this isn't the approach to organizing article content. What we do is look at the how the reliable sources treat the subject, and most sources discuss circumcision as a procedure performed by a medical provider, so that is how the article is organized. Zad68 18:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

== Hey ==

Hi, I am a studentwho is editing this page that you edited earlier which is talking about Tourism in Somaliland so i wanted to tell me some good sources that could be good to use. thankz 

--Zak Abdi (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Hey

I am going to edit a page in wikipedia that you edited some time ago. So I wanted if you could get some sources for it to add more stuff please and give me some advices for the page and the sections that it needs to be added. thankz --Zak Abdi (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how you hope I can help. Can find stuff through google. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS again

Hi Doc, I'm going to improve the Persian article and submit the translations. I saw the English article which is GA now, I think it could be FA easily since it's so complete and high-quality. Why don't you nominate it for FA? ●Mehran Debate● 06:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not do FAs. I am more of a content person rather than grammar and style person. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
You mean the content has no problem and the only reason is the grammatical issues? I think it would be solved if an experienced user reviews it and correct the mistakes. What do you think? ●Mehran Debate● 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is definitely one of the better articles I have worked on. While I would be willing to help with the FA process I am not willing to lead it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Great, so I'll look for someone who can lead it. :) ●Mehran Debate● 03:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Help please

Hi Doc, the article Placental expulsion is a mess and I'd like to be able to read the Cochrane report for myself to try and improve the article. Could you paste it on my talk page or somewhere? I also found some good info from the WHO and the Guttmacher Inst. that I'd like to add. I am learning that many women are dying from poor birthing care--not to suggest that I was not already aware--I am just finding one more problem. [5] Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Email me. Am away for a bit but back in a week. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

X-Rays in Commons?

Hi Doc, RexxS sent me. I'm trying to figure out "teh rulz" on getting veterinary radiographs onto Commons. Specifically, I'd like to use one of the ones I've linked below in Tennessee Walking Horse, which all have a label on them saying "USDA" which I think indicates they are probably PD-US-Gov:

and/or

Any help appreciated, and thanks. Montanabw(talk) 22:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think these would be fine as they are US governmental works and thus in the public domain. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Common cold

Is this websites ([6], [7], [8]) reliable enough to use in Common cold? They have some useful information. ●Mehran Debate● 03:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The NHS yes. The other two I would say no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia

Hi Doc. Check the fibromyalgia talk page when you have a chance please. :) I see you are on holidays, no rush at all, just pointing out as not sure if you still have it watch listed.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Live mirror testing

I added the span tags so that I could verify a site (scoopweb.com) was a live mirror for Wikipedia content. See here. Thegreatgrabber (talk)contribs 03:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For what purpose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no need for it anymore, but as I said it was my intent to list the site at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks, and I used the span tags to ensure that it was indeed a live mirror. Thegreatgrabber (talk)contribs 03:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

This is concerning your non-constructive editing of Circumcision.

On the off-chance that you are not aware of it, I would like to let you know of WP:Edit warring and in particular WP:3RR, the three-revert rule. In short: Edit warring (trying to enforce edits non-constructively in cases other than very obvious vandalism) is never acceptable and can lead to a block, but as an additional bright line, even constructive editing usually has that result if you make four or more reverts in a 24-hour period. For evaluating this bright line, any contiguous sequence of your edits that substantially includes one or more reverts apparent in the overall result counts as a single revert, regardless of whether it also involves other changes or not. Hans Adler 07:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "any contiguous sequence of your edits that substantially includes one or more reverts apparent in the overall result counts as a single revert, regardless of whether it also involves other changes or not" But anyway it is you that need to get support / consensus for your changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I just realised that you are an admin (I have a script for making them visible, but it doesn't work with fancy signatures), so obviously you already knew about 3RR. Sorry for the mistake. What I meant is that doing several individual reverts in a row with no intervening other edits does not increase your revert count, self-reverted reverts don't count, and hiding a revert by combining it with some other edit is useless.
For obvious improvements to an article, no prior consensus is required. WP:BRD is not generally deprecated on contentious articles and is in fact often necessary to prevent getting stuck in fruitlessly vague discussions. Hans Adler 07:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I recommend that you try a RfC if you wish wider community input. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
An RfC on what? Hans Adler 07:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
On the AAP being "biased" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Conflict Resolution

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Most conflict revolves around content issues. I really only deal with the subject matter I am familiar with, medicine and if people post on WT:MED I will often weight in or at least take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

BP

Hi Doc, it seems BP has been rewriting the article about itself since last July, with the help of a small number of editors who agreed to insert the company's drafts. See here for a description of what happened.

Smallbones has started a discussion about it at WT:COI to try to introduce a rule change to stop this kind of thing. I'm trying to round up some sensible editors to take part in the discussion. If you're willing, see Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#BP and large company editing in general. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Doc James, thanks for the pointer about references. The additions I made to the Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis pages was copied directly from the Collagen article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar (talk • contribs) 07:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And both were primary rather than secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

revert at HIV

Why did you make this revert. See "Reasons not to change (bypass) redirects" under WP:NOTBROKEN, in particular the first three. At best all you accomplished was to introduce "unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Piped links are fine and should be left as the original author wrote them per [9]. If consensus is developed that they are not than we can make these changes. All WP:NOTBROKEN says is do not go around adding piped links. It does not state that people should be going around and removing piped links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it's "unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form", puss "Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links." Also "Redirects can indicate possible future articles (see {{Redirect with possibilities}})." and while this is unlickly in the case of sexually transmitted infection (for example), it is quite possible in the case of Rough sex
As I stated if you can show me consensus than sure. I however would like to make sure there is consensus before there is wide spread removing of piped links. If the community is indeed against it than maybe a bot could take care of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I have been doing this kind of thing for a long time, and you are the first person who has ever objected. WP:NOTBROKEN clearly lists reasons why pointless piped links are harmful, and says nothing to the effect of "Piped links are fine and should be left as the original author wrote them". So the "article being more difficult to read in page source form", preventing the effective use of the "what links here" tool, and bypassing redirects that can indicate possible future articles, and "eradicate[ing] useful information which can be used to help decide on the "best" article title" is fine? And we should not use a bot as you propose because "there are a limited number of cases where [bypassing redirects] is beneficial". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I often use piped links to simplify the term in question without losing the technical meaning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
How so? If it's not a pointless piped link then that's a little different. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you talking about using the tooltip to give the reader extra information, or something like that? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Diet and Lifestyle in prostate cancer

Your text is not representative of what your reference says. Please read your reference material, and lets discuss. Also, what are your objections to the secondary sources?

The reference link supporting "poor evidence" for ejaculation frequency influencing pc does not work, and your text does not jibe with the other four references (one secondary). Please provide a usable link to a readable reference to reinstate that sentence.32cllou (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a primary source [10]
As is this [11]
This ref works just fine were I am [12]. Please take your concerns to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you realize that ...

About 40% of Wikipedia's article on BP (British Petroleum) was written by a BP employee, and the the source of this text is not disclosed to our readers? BP was also the source of the horrific Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It recently pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and to lying to its own investors, but those facts are not included in the article, nor is there anything in the article about BP misleading our readers.

If you'd like to know why independent editors are leaving Wikipedia, please read User talk:Slim Virgin#Re: BP <Retired>

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes this is a very serious issue. I am not happy to hand over Wikipedia to private interests. Wikipedia works because the majority of volunteers are "good" or "ethical". If we allow paid interests I do not believe this will remain the case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

A reply

Kindy reply on the section secondary sources on this talk page. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

antibioic resistance

Good evening docjames, I am absolutely shocked about your unfriendly message:"Have removed your changes to the article on antibiotic resistance. Not sure what was with the strange numbering of sections. Also introduced a number of other errors. We typically keep section headings sort and they do not contain links per.." I have no problems if you remove the numbering or remove wiki errors". I would appreciate help, but not an indiscriminate 1-click 12 h work deletion. I have no problems to factually discuss anything, if you have questions. it appears you did not look at what I added or edited. the article was a mess, in many ways. nobody had worked on it for some time, even though this is a very important topic (to the wikiproject medicine apparently too). So, I will restore my version which was hard work. deleting all my work with one click is neither fair. I request your help in avoiding these formal errors, and would appreciate piece by piece negotiation for the issues. show that you are a content expert. w. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Many of the changes were not an improvement and it introduced many errors. Feel free to keep working on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your above reply is not constructive a) criticizing my changes of the antibiotic resistance article (>4500 edits) globally as "many were not an improvement" ( (evidence? most of what doesnt look good I merely shuffled, because as a novice I didnt dare to delete( like you) nor b) my reply to you in any way. b) You are quite obviously not a content expert. Therefore, you should either keep out off this topic or work WITH the person that is. Lastly, by saying Feeling free to work on it you treat me like a child. what teh guarantee that you dont do the same next time, when you as the big editor come in and with one click can destroy work that you have not shown to have assessed. why would I want to feel free to work on it? You havent paid me any respect in your lack of address or short and arrogant reply. If you had educational skills on your behalf. I think the show may be too big for you. You havent helped the issue of antibiotic resistance , leave alone me by trying to improve it ONE bit. The article remains a mess.Wuerzele (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fear of herbal remedies - rheumatoid Arthritis

Doc James, what's with the fear of mentioning herbal or other "natural" remedies for rheumatoid arthritis? I clearly indicated that the evidence is preliminary. These are placebo, controlled double-blind studies not just someone's idea. On the same page under "Other therapies" is says " weight loss, orthoses, occupational therapy, podiatry, physiotherapy, immunoadsorption therapy, joint injections, and special tools to improve hand movements (e.g., special tin-openers)" and not a single one of those is referenced. By your standard that whole section should be removed because not only are there no secondary sources for that quote, there are no primary sources. Again, why the fear of curcumin and collagen when it is clear that this is preliminary, and still based on at least on published double-blind, placebo controlled study? Sthubbar (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC) How about we try a different way. Do you have access to the full text of this secondary source?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22414101. It is a recent review.Sthubbar (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi James, I've mentioned Jclemens' posts to you regarding Will BeBack, here, in case you want to comment. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Seasonal Suicide

Mr. James, I simply borrowed the information from the "Seasonal Suicide" section in the Epidemiology of suicide sub-article.

In advance of my edit, on the Suicide talk page I wrote "I think its important to borrow certain elements of the "Seasonal Suicide" section in the Epidemiology of suicide sub-article to the main Suicide article." - This shows where I got the information and my honest intentions.

My logical assumption was that the Epidemiology of suicide article in Wikipedia (which in fact is listed as a link in the main Suicide article) was properly vetted by editors, and so there would be no issue with merely mirroring this important information. My clear mistake was that I did not also borrow the reference from that article, which I list below:

[1]

This reference meets both of your requirements (see your comment here: Can you provide refs that this is 1) a common misconception 2) it is false signed Doc James.) Mr. James, please tell me if this is appropriate and I will proceed with adding the below to the main Suicide article:

Heading: Seasonal suicide The idea that suicide is more common during the winter holidays (including Christmas in the northern hemisphere) is actually a myth, generally reinforced by media coverage associating suicide with the holiday season. The National Center for Health Statistics found that suicides drop during the winter months, and peak during spring and early summer.[2]

Thank YouEvangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

NPR is not really a reliable source. Is there a review article or major textbook that comments on this? Is it just an American thing or is this global? Often the content on subpages is not sufficiently supported for inclusion within the main article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. I overestimated the quality of vetting of subpages, and I will second guess their empirical support in my future edits. Your point about the NPR reference is well taken. Thanks againEvangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Alternative Medicine

Doc James, thanks again for enlightening me. I definitely want to steer clear of the word Complimentary if it means what I read at Talk:Alternative "Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment, in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods". The treatments I am proposing are definitely proven so we should steer clear of any term that can imply otherwise. I could not find and RfC or discussion about the use of the world alternative except as it related to surgery. Please point me to the RfC. Thanks.Sthubbar (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Some alt med has evidence to support it. It would not say the "China journal of Chinese materia medica" proves effect though. High quality reviews should be used and this would not be one. If the Cochrane collaboration had reviews on this topic they would hold greater weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Again with the talk page stalking. Don't use Wikipedia as a source in content discussions; it's not reliable :P. FWIW, I'd personally regard that definition of complementary medicine as something of a synthesis which should be reformulated to properly reflect the sources. Typically, it simply refers to the use of non-conventional therapy in tandem with conventional therapy and as a "complement" to it (and yes, like most definitions, it's essentially tautological - definitions have a curious habit of saying very little really); it's of British derivation and its adoption, if not coinage, reflects data which showed that most patients using alt med/CAM did not eschew conventional medicine (also, that it was less pejorative than alternative medicine for practitioners of non-conventional medicine interested in professionalising). Formerly, the definition in that WP article used to read that it was used in the belief that it was "effective" and hence some editors felt the need to qualify the statement with the "not proven by medical science" bit. There's no real scientific test that could be applied to idea of "complementarity" so its pretty redundant (likewise, the use of the term belief implies an absence of sufficient proof). You could mount a case that these sections should be renamed "CAM" or "Complementary and alternative medicine", and this would doubtlessly reflect the medical literature, but it won't really achieve what you want and is likely to be rejected in any case (I initiated a recent unsuccessful attempt to change the name of the alt med page to Complementary and alt med; I believe that rejection was erroneous and poorly reasoned but, as a signed up member of "don't give a fuckism" - a fantastic attribute, even if partly feigned, for editing in controversial areas - I'm not that bothered). Finally, I'd guess that Doc James is currently involved in a number of controversies, which is not to traduce his reputation in any way, but he might appreciate a little less talk page distraction just at the moment. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Why remove bullet points

Doc James, I see there are bullet points for "Skin" "Criteria" "Differential Diagnosis" "Traditional small molecular mass drugs" "Biological agents" and "Notable cases". By what criteria did you remove the bullets? Should I go through and remove the bullets from all of those sections and turn it into prose?Sthubbar (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Have been meaning to getting around to doing that yes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17344747 NPR: Study: Suicides Drop During Holidays
  2. ^ [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17344747 NPR: Study: Suicides Drop During Holidays
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_42&oldid=1151000396"