Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60

The Signpost: 09 October 2013


The validity of my sources

DrugPoint and UpToDate are used extensively for medical information in my University and at the local Public Hospital in my city and hence since they're actually dealing with people's lives and its good enough for them I don't see why it's not good for Wikipedia. These articles are written by doctors, pharmacists, nurses, etc. if you have a problem with them then I don't see why you don't have a problem with citing Medscape pages. Some may not be able to access these high-quality secondary sources but I can and I don't see anything wrong with utilising them, after all many medical books are often out of the reach of the average person due to the cost of said books but if some of us Wikipedians can access them I don't see anything wrong with us using it to better Wikipedia. UpToDate is peer-reviewed and I put down the date the documents for UpToDate were written and when I retrieved them but as pretty much every reliable medical resource it is updated regularly in order to keep up to date and it is peer-reviewed so I don't know what your problem is with these sources. As for DrugPoint it is regularly updated by a board of pharmacists, doctors, etc.Fuse809 (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have problems with Medscape pages aswell and do not think we should be using them as sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Both DrugPoint and UpToDate are companies that have their own specific marketing needs which can skew their output accordingly. Which really questions the quality of education provided by your university, and the quality of service provided by your local hospital, which do seem not to question motivation of these sources. dolfrog (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Both of these institutions (University and Hospital) are funded by the Australian Government and hence I'm more inclined to question your quality of education over that offered by said University. Fuse809 (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

just because a university is government funded does not demonstrate the quality of the teaching staff, and may imply some political skewing of the education offered. The real issue is are you able to question the information they provide and follow their sources. This is a open encyclopedia using open access sources hopefully free of pay and membership barriers so that all can access the information sources so that all can question and investigate the sources. And especially to avoid the special marketing interests of the pharmacutical industries out to make a profit, who can afford to pay for some peer reviewed research that favours their products, and the profits from these sales can also be used to fund the provision of new university facilities. dolfrog (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

They give reliable sources such as clinical trial data, product information documents (yes I know they're funded by pharmaceutical companies but the great thing about pharmaceutical companies is that they're often afraid of getting sued so they list every side effect that has been found in post-marketing surveillance) etc. James Cook University (my university) is a respected university and I was using the fact it was funded by the Australian Government and hence overseen by the Australian Government (and hence the pharmacy board of Australia which dictates what I am taught there including my sources) to demonstrate that it's a reputable source of information on Medical Sources. I would rather trust them with their information sources than you because I don't know your professional experience or expertise. The thing is that if we are obsessed with open, free information I'm afraid that we'll have to throw out many books as sources seeing how many of them are subject to copyright and hence not open and free and hence not all of us can access them. Fuse809 (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with pharmaceutical companies is that they can doctor the clinical trail data to favour their products. The problem is here is in your last answer "I was using the fact it was funded by the Australian Government and hence overseen by the Australian Government (and hence the pharmacy board of Australia which dictates what I am taught there including my sources) to demonstrate that it's a reputable source of information on Medical Sources. I would rather trust them with their information sources than you because I don't know your professional experience or expertise." It is not about my education, and experience, or your education and experience it is about the reliability of your sources. There is a vast body of peer reviewed international research available which is not skewed by the interests of a single government funded university which seems to have too more marketing than academic links from your own description. You fail to question these sources and you appear to blindly follow as you are instructed. In recent years we have student edit articles based on their universities guidance who have proved that their professors etc are so ignorant regarding as specific topic we have had to revert whole swathes of student contributions. So i would suggest you begin to question all sources provided by your university especially if the source is provide by an marketing based industry. dolfrog (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a source that is completely unskewed we are all biased to some extent and you haven't offered me proof that any of my sources are particularly skewed relative to the ones you're mentioning you've just offered your interpretation of them and not proof. Fuse809 (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

you have just proved my point no need to go further.dolfrog (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Other Animals Wiki Project Medicine Manual of Style

Hello, Jmh649, I recently joined the Wiki Project Medicine group. I noticed you posted about the "other animals" section here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles. I am working on the pregnancy loss (miscarriage) page and want to move the information on other animals away from the main article. I think this is consistent with the FA rated medical articles. Objections? I will post also on miscarriage/talk. Best, Benutzer41 (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to butt in here: Like I've stated elsewhere on Wikipedia, regarding topics that pertain to humans and non-human animals, unless that article topic is specifically about humans or specifically about non-human animals, such a Wikipedia article is more well-rounded if there is information in it about both humans and non-human animals. WP:MEDMOS, shows that, for example. And so do the WP:GA and WP:FA processes, often. So, in my opinion, it would be best to keep the Other animals section in the Miscarriage article, with a "Main article" link in it pointing readers to the main Wikipedia article with regard to that aspect among non-human animals (if there is a Wikipedia article to point readers to on that). Further, there are topics that have been studied significantly less with regard to non-human animals and therefore there is no need for a separate article for that information when it can, and likely should, be covered in one article about the general topic. Jmh649 might feel differently with regard to featured articles, however. Which article are you proposing to move the "other animals" material to? Or are you proposing to create a stub article about that? Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRIGHTLINE

I think something like this would work and should be proposed as policy, the shorter and simpler the better. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Casimir Liber

Hi, I read your article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221335/?report=printable and I noticed a contributor that's from the field of psychiatry and better still (at least in 2011) worked at an Australian University (Casimir Liber) and since every author of said article is said to be a member of Wikiproject Medicine under the Conflict of Interest statement I was wondering whether you know Casimir Liber's Wikipedia username. Thanks in advance.

By the way, I wanted to ask, while I realise you're not a psychiatrist I was wondering whether you know whether agomelatine and moclobemide have been approved by the Canadian regulator. Fuse809 (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Am away. Will ask though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Casimir Liber is me - am an Australian. No idea about those two medicines in Canada but both are approved for treatment in depression here in Oz. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Hello (DSM-5 Criteria in Articles)

Hi, I'm kind of new to editing on Wikipedia and I figured since the DSM-4 criteria were included it would be ok to include the DSM-5. I'll go back and undo any articles I put the criteria in (if they haven't already been removed). Also: Should the names of the articles for various disorders be changed to match the new DSM-5 nomenclature? Hoping to contribute to expand the articles around here! Thanks

-Daniel

Am away. We need to be paraphrasing the DSM4 as well as the DSM 5. The world may not switch over to the DSM5 nomenclature and the DSM5 is exceedingly controversial within psychiatry. Thus I am against switching names on Wikipedia. We would need wider discussion first. Feel free to start at WT:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Flow Newsletter

Hey Jmh649. I'm dropping you a note to let you know (or remind you) about Flow, the structured discussion system for Wikipedia that we're building. You may have heard about some of the longer-term vision for Flow in the past, but in the last two months we've been moving quickly to narrow down the short-term scope of the project, and we're keen to get feedback.

First: we've written up an explanation of the "minimum viable product" – the set of features that will be in the first, on-wiki deployment. Because discussions on Wikipedia are complex and varied, we're approaching Flow development as an incremental process of uncovering user needs for different types of discussion. The first release will be limited to a few WikiProject talkpages only, with the goal of testing out our first stab at peer-to-peer discussion functionality and improving it based on feedback from the WikiProject members who use it. If you've got any thoughts on the MVP, or on the philosophy we're trying to follow with this software, let us know on the Flow talkpage. If you know of a WikiProject that might be interested in testing this out, let Maryana know on her talkpage :)

Second: we're having a set of discussions around some experimental features we'll be trying in the first release. These include indenting and nesting of comments and comment editing. If you've got any practical thoughts on these, we'd appreciate hearing them. For background and feedback on the design, there are the ongoing set of design iteration notes, a Design FAQ, and a page for design feedback.

The software prototype is still in early development, and changing daily in small ways, with major goals updating every 2 weeks. If you've got comments about other bits of the software, we'll be holding an IRC office hours session in #wikimedia-office at 18:00 UTC on 17 November to talk about Flow as a whole, and fielding questions on the talkpage before and after then.

Third: this is a pre-newsletter announcement of a new WP:Flow/Newsletter signup page! If you'd like further updates, details, and requests for input, please add your name there.

Thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Due to multiple-human-error (the best kind of error!) the Office Hours meeting was announced with the wrong month. The logs for today's (quiet) meeting, can be seen at m:IRC office hours#Office hour logs.
The updated time and date of our next IRC office hours meeting is: 18:00 UTC on 24 October. Thanks, and sorry about the mixup. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Persian TWB articles

Hello James, I submitted all the files into Persian Wikipedia. Please leave me a message whenever any other files was ready to submit. And thanks for managing this fruitful project. ●Mehran Debate● 07:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Recent edits to Gynecomastia

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. While the content of your edit may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. Thank you! 🍺 Antiqueight confer 17:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You could try joining the discussion on the talk page which is how Wikipedia works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Book:Health care

Translation task force assessment statistics
WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 3 5 8
GA 24 15 39
B 2 150 2 154
C 1 73 1 2 2 79
Start 7 1 8
Stub 1 1
Category 4 4
Project 1 2 3
Assessed 31 250 3 3 6 3 296
Total 31 250 3 3 6 3 296
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 902 Ω = 3.12

worklist • log • category

Are Book:Health care (which I think numbers 100 entries, though I haven't verified) and the following table supposed to match each other exactly? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Nope just 80. Where's the list of 20? I saw it at one point and I remember pulmonary embolism was on it. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
There are just 80 right now. We are still discussing exactly which 20 more we are going to add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Where? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
See here Book_talk:Health_care which links to User:Jmh649/Pages_to_add Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Pharma companies exempt from Bright Line Rule?

Many thanks for your comments about my contributions on this thread on Jimmy Wales' talk page. I'm still active, although, not so often as before. My open letter to pharma companies was meant to initiate discussions with them. My point was that they choose somebody from their company to reveal all conflicts of interests on his/her Wikipedia page and only suggest contributions to entries about their own products. This way we could transparently monitor their activities but they could ask our community to help with their entries. NCurse work 13:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Source for breast cancer image

Hi James -

I'm a bit confused by your comment at Talk:Breast cancer, indicating that "[you] did not upload this image BTW". On the image's information page on Commons (File:RecurrentbreastCA1.gif) you are credited as the image's creator and the history looks like you uploaded it in 2009. If that information is not correct, please let me know so I can bring it to the attention of an admin over on Commons. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

...aaaaand never mind. I missed the mention that it was a derivative work. In the future, for such works it is probably best to explicitly credit and link to the original file and original author right in the image description template/box; see File:Port-catheter.jpg for an example of how to do this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to improve the templating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Snakebite

Hello, I'm the herpetologist (albeit a new, young and inexperienced one) that wrote the new section "Snakes of particular concern" and its sub-sections and I originally had galleries showing the species talked about in the article. I thought it was a good idea to make two separate galleries - one for the "Highly Dangerous" species category and one for the "Considerably Dangerous" species category - but you seem to think the galleries aren't necessary. I see you point, but I believe that most readers aren't as familiar with the species as you or I may be. Perhaps one gallery with only a few select photos of the more dangerous species (besides the black mamba and coastal taipan)? --DendroNaja (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to include a couple of pictures. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

References and columns

In the context of this edit, I would like to ask if there is any particular reason to prefer {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} to {{Reflist|2}}. I prefer the latter (simple two column) as I have seen that the latter works fine whereas the 30em code does not work on many computers or browsers probably due to issues of browser or resolution specifications. I think that you would keep this in account. DiptanshuTalk 07:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks yes and you will notice that in the next edit I restored it [1]. If as you say the 2 column parameter is more universally functionally than I am happy to switch to using it. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the MAOI reference on the nicotine article

Hi, I was just curious as to why the part about how MAOI and nicotine co-administration increases dependency was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.247.10 (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Transcendental Meditation technique for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transcendental Meditation technique is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Removing full citations

Hi, sorry for using the {{cite doi}} template for those references. I was trying to tidy up the articles listed in the category Category:Pages_using_citations_with_old-style_implicit_et_al., and the {{cite doi}} template seemed to be the easiest way to include all the authors. For future edits I'll only edit the existing references rather than using the template. Cheers 564dude (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We typically use the cite tool in the tool bar for our ref style for medical articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

nicotine maoi co-administration

The article on nicotine used to have the following paragraph.

Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties.[20] However, after coadministration with an MAOI, such as those found in tobacco, nicotine produces significant behavioral sensitization, a measure of addiction potential. This is similar in effect to amphetamine.[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.247.10 (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed it in this diff [2] as it was based on a primary source and per WP:MEDRS we should be using secondary ones. Also the primary source did not support the text in question and the text is wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving Sections

Hi, James. This is a minor concern, but when you're moving sections like you recently did in dexmethylphenidate, it's better to move it all in one edit than it is to remove it in one and then add it in another. It just makes it easier to see what's going on in the diffs. Thanks. Exercisephys (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is more difficult were the internet is poor. Cannot handle bringing up a whole page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for input.

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Appreciate your comments about sources and writing style. Thank you.

Just an FYI: These three links are the best overview of what's going on in psychiatry now, in my opinion, and where the field's heading (saw DSM-5 discussion at top of your page):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-dsm5-ignores-biology-mental-illness

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/05/07/no-one-is-rejecting-the-dsm-but-it-is-almost-time-to-transform-it/

http://www.nature.com/news/mental-health-on-the-spectrum-1.12842

Right now we have a 40% hit-rate with medication: meaning they work for only 40% of people upon being first prescribed, 30% of people they don't work for, another 30% they make symptoms worse or cause unintended new symptoms (these are the people us psychiatrists ought to be careful to protect; which is why family history, exclusions, and differentials are so important). I'm hearing from research colleagues that we'll have genetic tests in the next 7-10 yrs leading to more targeted treatment using our existing medications.

This video gives a nice visual presentation of how the new research will be changing assessment and treatment:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2013/introduction-to-rdoc.shtml

Best wishes to you, Doc James, and thanks for your feedback.Youtalkfunny (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Dexmethylphenidate Intro

Would recommend you get consensus. You are at your 3rd/4th revert in 24hours. Some efforts of Wikipedia distribution only send out the lead of the article. Thus the lead needs to summarize the text.

For the fifth time, I will state my point: that paragraph is bizarrely specific and does not summarize the article. Here are some questions that the intro should address that it doesn't:

  • How commonly is DMPH prescribed?
  • In what ways is it effective in treating ADHD?
  • In what ways is it ineffective at treating ADHD?
  • Can it be abused?

Here is a question that should not be answered in the intro, but is:

  • What are the two scariest side effects of DMPH, described at length and with citations, in a paragraph copied-and-pasted from the article body?

That is not a summary of anything, it's something thrown in to make the drug appear threatening. This is something I deal with often as someone who edits articles about psychiatric medications. I can sniff it out with the nose of a bloodhound. Exercisephys (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Try the talk page. We mention height and weight and than state it is not a concern for most people. This is a key concern and I do not see what the issue is with mentioning it in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


Formation of New Tables. Do you have any corrections for them

I am currently in the process of creating a table (see my Sandbox for its present form) with solely secondary/tertiary sources and where possible ones that are preferred by WP:MEDRS, although UpToDate is sometimes referenced where alternate cites are unavailable to provide the relevant information and from what I can tell the UpToDate page in question is free to access) and I wanted to know whether the Antidepressant page would be appropriate place to put it and whether or not there's something I missed in it that you would like fixed. Fuse809 (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you get wider input at WT:MED. The table you have created is too wide for my computer screen. The other concern I have is that there is very little comparative research thus where does the comparative estimates come from? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Comparative adverse effects are the sources I gave, especially the UpToDate, Goodman and Gilman and AMH. As for the efficacy the 12 second-generation antidepressant lancet article and other efficacy sources (there's one specifically comparing agomelatine to the rest, there's also a few other sources I'm going to put up for drugs for which sources are currently not up (e.g. moclobemide). Fuse809 (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh and I've removed two categories (half life and dosing frequency as while they're interesting to me they're not really that interesting to laymen, or at least not unless they're looking for personal medical advice which is not the intended purpose of wikipedia med articles) to help the table fit the page better. Fuse809 (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

While you're answering my queries I might as well ask a question about sources. There are several databases I access via Micromedex via my institution, two are DrugDex & DrugPoint two sources that seem unwelcome here but another, Martindale, which was (and still is but is less commonly updated as the book is huge and expensive) originally published as a book, seems like a respectable source (I may mention that drugbank is known to cite it from time to time) and I'm wondering how much of a problem it would be if I cited it. Fuse809 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikis and Collaborative Writing Applications in Health Care: A Scoping Review

Hi James,
Long time no see, I hope you feel good.
I want to know if you have read this and, if so, what do you think about it? I thought that maybe, if you have time, you'll be able to write an op-ed for our RAW on that.
See you ! Simon Villeneuve (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes have seen it. Will consider. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just wanted to say thanks for your input on the amph talk page. I doubt many people would have been willing to read through a thread that long.

Seppi333 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hope it helps a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

thought you might want to see this

An open letter for free access to Wikipedia

Victor Grigas (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark Hyman (doctor)

Would you do me a favour (no hurry) and take a look at Mark Hyman (doctor)? I think there was a G11 involved somewhere along the line, but it's late here, and the redirect trail has boggled me a bit for the moment. Thanks. Begoon talk 16:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Do not really get involved in BLPs. Typically stick to medicine related articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Move request

Can you please move Baller-Gerold syndrome to Baller–Gerold syndrome with the page history and redirect the other accordingly. Reason: Improper hypenation. I do not think that there would be any issue with the move. DiptanshuTalk 07:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Suicide

How Sati is a suicide? When it was done by the women, only for escaping from the invaders, like it's mentioned in main page? It's wasn't just practiced in India either, plus it's forbidden by hindu texts, so how it's a "hindu practice" either? It was never legal to do, but still women had to do, so that they can save themselves from getting abucted by the invaders. There's no proof if it was ever legal, it's same as saying that murder was legal everywhere until the court were established.. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Also the source it self doesn't mentions anywhere that "herself on her husband's funeral pyre, either willingly or under pressure from the family and society." It's obviously made up by some editor here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The ref says "A woman has burned herself alive on the funeral pyre of her dead husband in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, committing the sacred but outlawed Hindu practice of 'sati'" What do you think our text should be changed to? No were do we state that it was ever legal. [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you whether remove that whole sentence again, or write like.. "Sati, a practice in which the widow used immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre, in order to save herself from getting abducted by invaders."[1]
  1. ^ Kurien, Prema (2007). A Place at the Multicultural Table: The Development of an American Hinduism. Rutgers University Press. p. 171.

Something like that. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So you are going to insert, or i can insert it? Bladesmulti (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Some people still do it per the BBC ref. And page 171 of the ref does not support the text in question [4]. Page 121 supports that the practice was banned in 1829. It also supports that it is sometimes due to social pressure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Do or did? Well, there has been total of 40 cases in last 66 years, so basically it's nothing. The practice is obviously dead. That's what the point is. The practice may have been constitutionally banned, because of the establishment of court, but then any crime or suicide can't be said as legal, before the formation of court. Maybe this would be correct?:-

"Sati, a now outlawed practice, expected the widow to immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre, usually in order to save herself from getting abducted by invaders, either willingly or under pressure from the and society." Bladesmulti (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear if it is only to avoid being abducted by invaders. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Popularly, only started, after indian subcontinent was invaded by islamic invaders. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Column width as per resoulution

Requesting you to participate in the discussion on my talk page. Wish to get your inputs on the topic.

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Diptanshu.D's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DiptanshuTalk 17:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

About your edits on Anencephaly

Concerning the edit on Anencephaly, I have restored the previous format of the article which I believe has been decided after considerable debate on Talk:Anencephaly#Image move. We aim to WP:Request for comment to decide the ultimate form of the article.

Apart from this I have tried to raise the issue on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Collapsible galleries concerning content of difficult nature in medicine concerning medical images of graphic nature.

As an administrator and a very active member contributing to medical articles on Wikipedia it would be of utmost value to hear your opinion in both talk pages Talk:Anencephaly#Image move & Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Collapsible galleries concerning content of difficult nature in medicine. I am also aware that WT:MOS states:

The goal is to make Wikipedia easier and more intuitive to use.

and

Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole.

In my opinion the collapsible gallery makes Wikipedia easier when it comes to conveying information to both the general public as well as medical professionals, and the departure from WT:MOS may be a acceptable compromise.

Looking forward to hearing from you. 

-- CFCF (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not see the consensus you mention. We do not typically hid images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I see an RfC is in order, but the last edits you did was disruptive. It removed a perfectly valid X-ray image as the header, completely from the article to prove a point. If you are going to revert edits, you may at least see to it you don't remove content that was legitimately placed.CFCF (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes a RfC is in order. I see you have restored the X-ray. Thanks and sorry I missed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Dexamfetamine

According to WP:PHARMMOS we are meant to use INN names as drug article titles. Yet for some reason that escapes me the dexamfetamine article is titled Dextroamphetamine which is the USAN. I don't know how to change the name of article but I assume it would be involve moving the article to the newly named article which I think is something only an admin, like yourself, is able to do. Fuse809 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That's also the case for amphetamine and levoamphetamine, but for those 3 articles the INN is much less common usage than the USAN (#1 in WP:CRITERIA); I also don't know why they replaced the ph with an f, because I've never seen phenethylamine written as fenethylamine. There's a similar issue with the formerly titled Adderall, which was recently discussed here. Seppi333 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Administrator request to add new task force

Hello, I hope you are enjoying your holiday! I was wondering if you would be so kind as to make the changes to the {{WP:MED}} template to include a new task force, society and medicine. It looks very complicated to make a change, and I'm not sure non-adminstrators are able (WP:MEDTF) The task force page is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Society_and_medicine_task_force, and I've already created the relevant categories. I hope through this task force we can make a positive change to a growing subset of articles under the scope of WP:Med. LT910001 (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Have left a similar message on the talk page of Jfdwolff, in the event you're away for a prolonged period of time. LT910001 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
From what I remember it was complicated. Not sure if you need to be an admin. I will look in a few days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hypercholesterolemia

Hello Jmh649: I added the "See Also" section because I think The China Study adds something important to the discussion about why many people develop hypercholesterolemia. Why did you delete it? Are you familiar with the book? Hill's Angel (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDMOS we do not really do see also sections. I am aware of the book. The link to it on the main hyperchol page in its very own section is IMO undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I looked at WP:MEDMOS but didn't find any reference to not using "see also" in medical articles. Can you point that out? Malke 2010 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It is here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Kanna Page -- Formatting problem

Hi, you're the only admin I know so I thought I'd ask you how I would put four images in a single cell. On the Sceletium tortuosum pages I have been trying to add four images of the plant's constituent alkaloids and I'd like to put them into a single cell at the end of the pharmacology section. Fuse809 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I just figured the answer out for myself, thanks anyway. Fuse809 (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Great. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Move request

Can you please move Shwachman–Bodian–Diamond syndrome to Shwachman–Diamond syndrome with the page history and redirect the other accordingly. Reason: The latter term in widely used in scientific literature whereas the former is not commonly used. Even the article lead uses the latter directly and not the former. I do not think that there would be any issue with the move. DiptanshuTalk 10:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss this one? DiptanshuTalk 15:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_53&oldid=1168300743"