Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58→Archive 60

Citing Cochrane

Doc, this is the first time I've cited a Cochrane review from my subscription: would you mind seeing if I did it correctly? [1] There's a mess of POV across all of our Cannabis articles, based on primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Look okay, I usually simply things a little more such as "A 2009 Cochrane Review found not enough evidence to support the use of cannabinoids in treating tics and obsessive compulsive behaviour in people with Tourette's syndrome". But either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I meant the technicalities in the cite journal template-- I don't know how to list it, and the subscription required part. Are Cochrane reviews not PubMed indexed? No PMID? So I can't use Diberri? I'm not too worried about the wording now because that entire suite of articles needs to be rewritten-- little will survive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The PMID is here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19821373 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Beats me why I couldn't find it on my PubMed search ... I'mADork. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Clomipramine

Hi I'm currently making major changes to the clomipramine page in my sandbox and I think everything is fine with it as far as WP:PHARMMOS and other applicable manuals of style but I'd appreciate it if you would give it a once over and tellme if there's any issues with it. Fuse809 (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks good from the position of layout. Made a few small changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

doctor

do you have proof that you're a doctor? because you are not on any university websites that you say you have affiliation with. just wondering. thanks! Mr Johnson The Second (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
In addition to this that James added to his user page, also look further on his user page where it shows he's been published in medical journals. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this user may be of the opinion that I have fooled everyone. I guess the next question is but are you not "just a family doctor" rather than an "ER physician" as some sources list you as the former rather than the latter. I am from Canada and training in emergency medicine is different here than in the United States. More than 90% of ER physicians in my country are also family physicians and I am in that group being CCFP(EM) qualified.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources

We do not typically use primary sources. As refs did not really support the content in question have removed it until better refs found. Please read WP:MEDRS. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

For vitamin D there are plenty of books reffering to it: https://www.google.com/search?q=vitamin+d+atopic+dermatitis&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 , please consider to reinput the additions to the article with "appropriate" sources PS: good to see that edits are checked !! :) --92.192.92.7 (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes this ref looks at vitamin D and atopic dermatitis.[4] It states the relationship between the two are unclear.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well ok, but obviously it is discussed by doctors as a possible cause. Is it worth to include it?--92.192.92.7 (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
In a section on research at the end of the article if based on secondary sources maybe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Tone and references

Hello Jmh649, I appreciate your help. This is my first Wikipedia article. I will go through and try to correct the tone to use proper encyclopedic language. The issue about references is a more difficult one. I understand the need for recent secondary source references, and do my best to provide secondary source material. However, so far I have been unable to find any review articles where the authors are not funded by, or associated with, dairy councils, pharmaceutical companies, or large food and beverage corporations. Their articles may say they "have no conflict of interest", but I disagree. MSRoodvoets (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

MSRoodvoets maybe Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches will help you understand how to use WP:MEDRS and to restrict your searches in PubMed for secondary reviews, and avoid primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I will look and see what I can find. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Amitriptyline

Hi, I'm sorry to bother ya again but I have been making major changes to the amitriptyline article and I wanted to get your input on my changes to the article which I have in my sandbox. I have tried to follow WP:PHARMMOS and also tried to copy some of your recommendations on the clomipramine page. Fuse809 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I see ya replied to another comment on ya talk page after I wrote this request so I'm sending another just in case you've accidentally sat on a syringe full of morphine and went into the land of dreams as morphine's name suggests you would. Fuse809 (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Few comments. This is a primary source [5] and thus would remove it and the content associated with it unless a better ref can be found. Under medical uses I try to use review articles rather than FDA approval status. What something is FDA approved for is more of a legal issue and should go in the society and culture section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS we typically use no primary sources (except in rare exceptions). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was someone else that put that there it was just a remnant of the old article. I left it there because the simple fact is many indications of older medications have little if any support from the literature. I will accept its removal it's a pretty lousy use of amitriptyline anyway. TCAs were once a first-line treatment for ADHD but it was mostly the more noradrenergic and better-tolerated agents that were used and amitriptyline is neither of those.Fuse809 (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Realize that you are still working on it :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexa numbers

Right And going from seven to a six is a decrease of one, not an increase. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Example See {{IncreaseNegative}}. If your website is ranked #398,009,498 that's a huge number and a bad thing. If the number gets bigger that's even worse. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
When Alexa says increased however they mean that the number is improving / getting smaller.
Look at Wikipedia, a green up arrow of 1, for a change from 7 to 6 [6]
Look at Wikivoyage, a green up arrow of 2966, for a change from 25149 to 22183 [7]
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Alexa What they are measuring is the Alexa rank, in which a small number is a good thing. But as you pointed out, 25149 is a bigger number than 22183. If we are measuring (e.g.) points in basketball, more is better. So you get green up arrows: more points are good. In golf, it's the other way around: if you get lots of strokes, you get a red up arrow. The quantity itself increased but that's a bad thing. Wikitravel used to be number 2411 and is now number 2482, so the number went up. That's a bad thing. The arrow needs to point up (since the number increased) but be red because what happened is bad (you want your site to be number one). The graphic displays two pieces of information: did the quantity go up or down and did it get better or worse. Alexa's arrows on their site are confusing because they show good/bad correctly but they show increase/decrease incorrectly (e.g. the example you gave above: going from 7 to 6 is not going up but down in quantity). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah so we are not going by the 3 month change given by Alexa but going by a shorter time period. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Time period The template doesn't give instructions on the time period, but what makes the most sense is from when the article was last updated, which should be monthly, since a bot can do it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Advice for UMN surgeon on uploading videos

Hey Doc James, I'm working with a surgeon (Urology) at the University of Minnesota who wants to use a GoPro to record some video of some surgeries for use in Wikipedia. In talking with him about this, I thought of you since you're the only active Wikipedian doctor that I know of -- though I'm sure there are many. Would you be interested in advising me on what I need to know in order to get these videos on commons and ready for inclusion in Wikipedia? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. Wonderful to hear that this surgeon is taking it one. What we need for Wikimedia Commons is for the surgeon to either upload them him or her self or give a signed consent that they are willing to release them under a CC BY SA license. It is than sent to Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>
If the person is identifiable than of course signed consent should be gotten by the surgeon in question. This does not need to be sent to Wikipedia in any way shape or form. It is simply good practice just in case his college asks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thks

Thanks for the tips on putting in a book (cirrhosis page). I was not sure how to do it with an online book. I will include section number. Eaamed (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


Doxepin

Hi I've taken the doxepin article into my sandbox for some edits and I've got some formatting issues with the tables (if you see them you'll know what I mean) and I was looking for your help on them as I haven't the foggiest how to fix them. Fuse809 (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

createangelos message

Thanks for your message...which contribution are you referring to? The Forton article about hepatitis C? If so, there is a corresponding peer reviewed article I could include. Let me know which article you're referring to.Createangelos (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I've undone the hepatitis C revert. The Forton article is in Hepatology, at some stage I had a copy of that article. It is the most reputable journal about viral hepatitis....so I am not sure I understand your revert at all.

One reason I thought it was important to mention this is that a high proportion of hep C patients first identify that they have a viral illness because of the characteristic fatigue/flu-like symptoms.

Some organizations (ALF and others) make a point in the public interest of letting people know about this so they can get tested if they have been a previous intravenous drug user or had blood transfusions. Not true that the disaase is completely asymptomatic.

There are not as many peer-reviewed articles about the possible cause of the fatigue/cognitive impairment as there should be. It does not correlate with ALT, fibrosis, ammonia, or any other biochemical marker but does remit if a patient clears the virus in treatment.

The Forton article actually identifies changes in the brain with an MRI, and does cognitive testing.

Createangelos (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Replaced the primary ref with a review article [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

OK now I understand it. Thanks Createangelos (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If I am not editing correctly, then please give me more suggestions

Please dont Censor me, I am not trying to cause any problems, just trying to comply with your requests — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.74.117 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to use high quality secondary sources per WP:RS.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I quote from Wikipedia

Can I quote from Wikipedia in another part of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.74.117 (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Referring to Wikipedia content on other pages is actively discouraged, because Wikipedia articles are widely redistributed and the page being quoted may change or may not be included in the relevant derivative works.
If the content you want to quote is referenced, simply bring the references across to the article and summarise the relevant content. Do you have a specific example? JFW | T@lk 14:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

for my comments yesterday at WT:MED. I am, obviously, very annoyed with you for not agreeing with me on the disclaimer but that, obviously, is no excuse. You and JFW are two of the people I most admire here and when you opposed what I saw as a significant moral issue, I paid out on you more than I did on anyone. Not fair, not called for. And I apologise unreservedly. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I hope that we do not need to always agree to still appreciate each others work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not in violation

you claim that the public can edit it, I have according to your requests!

It is becoming quite clear to me that you only want biased information that makes the public fear colonic Irrigation,

I have provided academic articles with a alternative opinion.

If you dismiss the public because Our information is different than yours, than you are actually censoring and being extremely biased!

The articles I sited are of the same calibur as the ones you quoted from, therefore the only issue can be that you have some motive to keep out such information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.74.117 (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Than read what a review article is and isn't. This is not [9] Neither is this "http://www.endonurse.com/news/2011/09/association-defends-colon-cleansing-in-medical-journal.aspx". You also seem to be cutting and pasting from your sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I warned him for copyvio. DMacks (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not in an EDIT war, just trying to comply to your standards

I respect my profession as a colon hydrotherapist in Florida, where I hold a license from the GOVERNMENT of the USA to perform Colonics. By the way Florida is currently the only state that has a license for Colonics,

also I am a Teacher via I-act and NBCHT, so perhaps my expert perspective is much needed on this subject,

It is clear that your info is out dated and biased in favor of MD's (which I am not an MD),

I will also note to you that just because MD's have opinions that is just an opinion, what really matters is evidence based studies, which I provided! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.74.117 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this practice. The problem is 1) your sources and 2) your plagiarism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
What matters is review articles of evidence-based studies. That is, we need other publications to help support that the studies themselves are reliable/valid/etc. because readers can't be expected to trust some anonymous person on the internet (especially for medical concerns). As a medical professional, you obviously know the difference between a study itself and a review of a wide range of studies. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You ARE edit warring and not heeding the warnings and links with instructions posted on your user talk page. Respond to those warnings and indicate that you understand them and will follow them. Also use the "History" tab and read the edit summaries for all edits. This is not your personal website. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

X Rays

Thanks. Which image is it you were referring to?

(I will note however that many of my concerns about diagnostic images are ethics concerns not so much copyright ones.)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This one [10]. X-rays are anonymous generally once the name / numbers have been removed. They are deemed at that point to be ethically okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
James, you might be interested in orthanc as a possible tool for managing some of these images. It looks as if it might, for instance, help with automating the anonymity in order to avoid the accidental outing of individuals. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 17:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Migraine Edit

I am new to editing in wikipedia and am working to add evolutionary medicine standpoints to medical articles for my Darwinian medicine class. There is another separate article called the evolutionary benefit of migraine headaches which is very in depth and my goal was to create a concise link between the two. All of the information is from that other article, which has already been cited. Do I still need to add those references to the migraine page as well or is there a way for me to link it to references on a separate page? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericchevli90 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The content will need to be supported by references to high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Please read WP:MEDHOW regarding how to edit. Also please read WP:MOS regarding formatting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
By the way I created this article Genetics of migraine headaches by moving contain added from the main migraine article [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Hello Jmh649:

The entry for Hypercholesterolemia states:

"Even when there is no single responsible mutation to explain hypercholesterolemia, genetic predisposition still plays a major role, potentially adding to lifestyle factors and multiplying the risk of late complications. Multiple genes are involved, and hypercholesterolemia where there is probably a genetic predisposition is called polygenic hypercholesterolemia. The involved genes have yet to be discovered.[19]"

Is this a valuable piece of information? Aren't multiple undiscovered genes likely to be involved in lots of things e.g. intelligence, alcoholism, height, temperament, depression, schizophrenia, etc.? Hill's Angel (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes needs improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS edit

Hi Jmh, I emailed you what I was talking about. You can contact me by email or on here, whichever is easier TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Have replied Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

tuberculosis article

Screenshot of TB

Edited: I went ahead and added the image galleries to the article - not sure if certain overlapping sections were intentional or not, but I figured it could look neater. Feel free to revert it if I did anything a bit too bold - I didn't read the sections, so I don't know how the content/images relate. Just please change it so my eyes won't continue bleeding if you do. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you find wrong with the previous layout? What you have changed it to does not fit on my screen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I completely forgot about presentational differences among browsers - I should probably check how different ones display pages I work on... In any event, I use chrome, so I have no idea how it looks in IE, firefox, or similar, but I see this: https://sites.google.com/site/seppilurvespancakes/home/wikicontent/files
I originally ran into a similar section break problem in Integral#Formal definitions (I'm hoping those galleries don't look awful in your browser) - I had to look up the policy on staggered left/right images to figure out what to do when text was being sandwiched or breaking sections (WP:IMAGELOCATION). I'm not sure if it's a position or just a size problem in your browser, but the size of the gallery and its images can be changed together with just the gallery width parameter. If it's the position, I'd have to check a few other browsers to see what doesn't seem like an eyesore first. Seppi333 (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
That does not look too bad. This is what it looks like with your changes on my screen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
ROFL. Ok that's pretty bad. The current looks the same in IE as chrome to me, so it's not that awful in comparison. I shrunk the gallery - is this still way too big? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Seppi333/sandbox2&oldid=584630919
Fits nicely in both browsers to me, but looks a little better in chrome. Seppi333 (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Still looks horrible. The other issue is that this fancy stuff is not supported in other languages. It does not work in Swahili [12] for example. I am creating content for translation into 60 languages and use simple markup to keep things working across language.[13]
I do not understand what you feel is the issue with the current version? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Also it is important to leave nearly all images at default sizes so people can decide via there preferences how large they wish them to appear. Currently the article formats very well for me. You have a very wide screen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah...I view Wikipedia at 125% zoom in chrome. No worries about the layout though - the alt text might be useful if you plan to take it to FA at some point, but otherwise, I really don't mind the layout one way or another. :P Seppi333 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity/for future reference, are there any gallery templates/formats that will work in all languages? Might be best if I just stick to those. Seppi333 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The simple <gallery> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

E-Mail for Usage of a CC-licensed picure

Dear Dr. Heilman,

I sent you an e-mail about my plan of using a few of your pictures for flyers, to get people's attention to the government induced financial problems our medicial faculty in Germany has. All the details are in the mail. I would very much like to have a reply from you and to get your OK.

Thanks for reading

Best regards

WilR93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilR93 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

COTM

Hi James, wondering if you are interested in the psoriasis article this month? There has been a bit of interest from other senior members for this collaboration, and I feel if editors like yourself join in then more will follow. There are a number of discussions on the talk page that need consensus before the real work begins I feel [14].

Since the COTM has restarted, we have failed to produce any high quality work. Combination of poor choice of article and lack of interest. I think it would be great to make it a goal each month to bring the article to GA. Perhaps the criteria for COTM selection should also be formally amended to state that only top and high importance articles should be selected, at least for the time being.

Since Psoriasis is a high importance, and we appear to have a bit more interest, I think this month is the one where the COTM will properly restart. Lesion (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am slowly working my way through this list of articles Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/Popular_pages bringing each one to GA. This is than followed by translation into as many other languages as possible per [15]. While take a look at psoriasis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I note psoriasis does not seem to be on that list, but it still a common condition, probably with a lot of pageviews. Also, if/when you start on Candidiasis let me know. I was expanding it and oral candidiasis a bit before but ran out of steam.

Chlorpromazine

Hi, I've started making some significant changes to the chlorpromazine page in my sandbox. I wanted to know if you would like any changes made to it. I am still making some adjustments at this point in time but still I'd appreciate it if you could tell me if it's progressing along the right lines. Fuse809 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Have made a few formatting changes. Why are some of the AEs bolded and others not? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I can clearly tell you haven't read my talk page where you asked the same question about another page. If you read Note 1 on the page you will read that bold text indicates adverse effects which are serious in nature. Fuse809 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah okay. Shouldn't be hidden in a note IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Unless it's a really really high traffic article, better to just do it in article space - having two versions of an article history is a headache. I did some early writing on the article and prescribe the medicine sometimes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
See, because it is there and not on article page, it is hard to talk about proposed changes on an article talk page when these are elsewhere. In general, articles should be in prose format, not thrilled about the layout of side effects. Chlorpromazine was always considered a low-potency antipsychotic, with its side effects predominantly anticholinergic rather than extrapyramidal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

COPD GA review

I've finished reviewing the last few sections. Sorry it took a while. JFW | T@lk 17:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Many thanks. Will try to get to it today. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I've finally completed my final neurotic readthrough, and picked up a couple of points. Otherwise it is very much ready for GA. Nice work, as always!
By the way, I've had patients quote to me from the dengue fever article. Surreal. JFW | T@lk 23:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes and this week we had two cases come through my ER and the nurses are busy reading a copy of the article we worked on :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Block needed

Hi Doc. We need a 3rr block here: User talk:76.92.127.29. Please save SandyGeorgia the difficulty of filing a report for such an obvious case. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Am involved there cannot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

Did not mean to cut-paste stuff exactly as it is. Two sentences in the article accidentally happened to be the same as given in the reference book. I have fixed them anyway. Thanks for pointing out. -- Netha (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

These changes are not enough [16]. You need to put the text in your own words. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Excellent work on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which has deservedly made GA. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The article Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jfdwolff -- Jfdwolff (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Warfarin

Hi, I've been making a few edits to the warfarin page in my Sandbox, mostly trying to improve the order and sections (e.g. removing dosing information) in accordance with WP:PHARMMOS and I've got a little stuck. See I'm not sure whether "chemical properties" section outlined in WP:PHARMMOS can be extended to include synthesis information or whether that belongs elsewhere. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify this for me and if you can see anything else you can improve in this page it'll be appreciated too. Fuse809 (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

External links go after references. And typically set images to default size. I do not see an issue with putting synthesis under chemical properties. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Quick question

Are there any formatting issues with this layout, or does this look fine in your browser?

Amphetamine#Pharmacodynamics

Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Typically leave image size at default so that people can set it via there preferences. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Abortion 1RR

On User_talk:BillMoyers you mentioned that Abortion is under a 1RR rule. I don't see that on the page or talk page... where do we find if an article is under special revert rules? Just curious. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Not 100% sure how it works but here [17] and in the archives you can read about it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles

FYI, not sure if you were aware of this: [18]. Lesion (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

St. John's wort

Hi, I would like your opinion: do you think the order of the St. John's wort article is acceptable? I ask because I notice it's a part of WP:Pharmacology and yet it's order is not in accordance with WP:PHARMMOS. I realise it's also a plant and hence some allowances must be made for botanical information to be in the article but still, just wanted your opinion. Oh and while you're at it I'm also wondering whether dosage information should be on this page as WP:PHARMMOS speaks against giving dosing information. Fuse809 (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you've made edits since I posted this so I'm going to send ya another message and hopefully ya attention will be drawn here. FYI I have already posed a question about the dosage info in the talk page of SJW so you needn't mention the fact I should. Plus, I've been making a number of edits to this page in my sandbox, particularly a table I'm creating comparing the pharmacology and chemical/physical properties of the different constituents of SJW and I wanted your input on it too, if I may. Fuse809 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

We do not typically put stuff in hidden tables. I would move stuff that is overly indepth to a subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

What about the dosage info? Should it go or do you consider it acceptable? Fuse809 (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Should go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi James. I know dental caries is rated as top importance for both WPMED and DENT, but I noted that toothache did not have WPMED support before I added it yesterday. I accept that odontogenic infection and orofacial pain might not be very commonly visited, but potentially toothache will have more traffic than dental caries? I have provisionally placed a mid importance tag pending your comment. Lesion (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Toothache was tagged as a "level 4 vital article". Lesion (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Dental caries gets many times more page views per [19]. No concerns with either high or mid. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That is surprising, I would have thought toothache would have been more commonly looked up than dental caries... Lesion (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Much probably depends on how well something is linked into other articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_56&oldid=1138955870"