Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70

Refs

With respect to refs we try to use high quality secondary sources like review article or major textbooks. News sources are not typically very good per WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I had second thoughts myself after my edit. Thanks again. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "water fluoridation". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 06:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.151.40 (talk)

Not really involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
A gesture of appreciation for your skill in defending the integrity of the articles here while also contributing to a welcoming, collaborative environment. Thanks for your help the last few months. I don't always agree with you, but I'm always glad you're here. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Formerly. I think our disagreements are usually fairly minor in the grand scheme of things :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Photos

Hello James, I wanted to ask about the photos where you are in the picture, particularly your main userpage photo File:James 5 (Final 4)a.png, and File:WikiProjectMed2013Meet.jpg. The file summaries state that they are your own work but obviously if you are in the photos it is reasonable to assume that either you used a timer on your camera or someone else took the photos. If you used a timer, please clarify this in the summary. If someone else took the photos, please identify and credit them and ask them to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so the OTteRS team can add a ticket to the files. You've made some great contributions, especially the medical images, which is why I thought it'd be more courteous to drop you a note. Cheers. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The one of me I took with a timer. I do not remember if the group photo was taken with a timer or not. If it wasn't I do not remember who took it. User:Bluerasberry do you remember? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Bare url

Jmh, I do not know what 'Bar url' that you are referring to.

Replied Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm MCaecilius. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Calcium channel blocker toxicity, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. M. Caecilius (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Have just started. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Impact factor and publication

Hey James, I was at a meeting last night and spoke with one of the faculty deans. Tried to get some buy-in for expertise help. As usual, the major problem was how to incentivize academics. His position was the articles need to be published in a journal with a 1/2 decent impact factor. Old problem. But it got me to thinking, has the WF/you explored trying to get the articles pubmed index (or a snapshot of the an article) and/or a self-published journal of articles (FA/GA) that have been peer reveiwed (which could then be pubmed indexed)? Given the reputation of WP, I'm sure the impact factor would rise quickly on its own. Ian Furst (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Has WP explored creating their own? Ian Furst (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Details here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your substantial ongoing and pervasive medical editing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC).
Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: changes

Thank you for your feedback, Doc James - I did try to be careful of that. I don't think the level of sophistication is entirely inappropriate for an article concerning biology, but while I was making the edit, I did think it sounded a bit awkward. I will keep that in mind and see if I can clean that up some. --Sphecidae (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is about a disease that affects primarily the worlds poorest. As such it is even more important to use worlds like "dog" instead of "canid". And terms like "common" instead of "prevalent". I am not so concerned about more technical words being used in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Reply

I must have been mistaken since the article I recently edited indicated lead poisoning as part of the cause. Also, is there a way for me to change my username? Piano410 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Where does this say lead is the cause? [2] Maybe I missed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Translation project

A thread on Jimbo's talk page about the medical translation project working on the Dutch Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I strongly encourage you and other collaborators to continue this project (as long as it results in better quality articles). LeRoc might make a lot of rumour and some people might agree with him, but in no way he reflects the opinions of the Dutch Wikipedia community. More importantly, he has no support in the guidelines. You are very, very welcome to help improve the Dutch Wikipedia. Let no one prohibit you things that ore not prohibited by the Wikipedia guidelines. Or even then, ignore all rules as long as you improve quality. Thanks! 2001:610:1908:C000:D9AE:A393:9DAE:7DF7 (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC) (nl:gebruiker:Josq)
Hello, Josq!
I want to sneak in here with my opinion. I think that LeRoc is right that the whole discussion should have happened within the Dutch Wikipedia community before the translation into Dutch started.
I've had that discussion on Norwegian Wikipedia and answered people's many, many questions about the project; that was the best way to do it.
(Translation to Norwegian never got underway. That may be my fault; I dropped the ball?) --Hordaland (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Why do you want some control over the initiatives of others by demanding a discussion first? Why not just assuming good faith? LeRoc seems to violate the nl.wikipedia guidelines in this regard. 2001:610:1908:C000:D9AE:A393:9DAE:7DF7 (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Josq. PLease continue the project. Any translated article may be temporarily placed in a holding position and in time be integrated. There is no rush and with few knowledgable editors it takes a while, but it is worth the wait for the Dutch wikipedia. --VanBuren (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. We have had some articles waiting for a fair time now. It seems that some are unable with the previously added articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
From the discussion I understand that some people want to have the opportunity to discuss before the rewritten article is being placed. I think this is absolutely not necessary, but others have a different view. To satisfy them, I suggest that 2-3 days before you place the article, you temporarily place it a subpage of your personal namespace, and provide a link to it on the talk page of the article (not in De Kroeg anymore, because there half of any proposals are treated very negatively, unfortunately). Article talk pages usually are only followed by people really interested in the subject and by the original authors. If no response, place it. If some response, discuss if any parts of the previous version are worth preserving. This way, no objections should arise anymore, because people have had the opportunity. 83.117.195.245 (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)(I'm sorry, this was me, Josq, again, from a different pc)

Okay I was not planning on placing any of the articles myself. I placed this article on my talk page [3] with the hope that someone would integrate it. This appears to be taking place :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

On my talk page, you noticed that when I was merging w:nl:Gebruiker:Jmh649/Schizophrenia into w:nl:Schizofrenie I did not merge the references (from the english version) into the new version. The reason for this is that I do not like to use references when I have not checked them. In my view, using references implies that you have read them, or at least checked if they really substantiate the claim. I mentioned this in w:nl:Wikipedia:Medisch café, after doing the largest part of the merge and stated that "Mocht er twijfel zijn over de juistheid van bepaalde beweringen/tekstfragmenten, dan kunnen de bronnen daarvoor desgewenst in de vertaalde tekst of in het engelstalige lemma worden opgezocht en gecheckt.", meaning that if someone questions the validity of certain claims/fragments, the sources may optionally be searched for in the translated version or the English original. In the past I have translated (parts of) articles in other languages (mostly english) for use in the dutch wikipedia, and I have always done it that way. Regards, 195.240.78.238 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Altough I am Itsme (on the dutch wikipedia), I edit here under IP, since my SUL is not complete. There is a different 'Itsme' active on the english wikipedia.
That is unfortunate. All the references were checked by myself and additionally the article underwent FA review on the English Wikipedia before translation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Bureau for Epilepsy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on International Bureau for Epilepsy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. KJ «Click Here» 04:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

Hi James, I just added a more accurate picture to Bipolar disorder so that it's actually of lithium carbonate, but the picture is huge and I don't know how to reformat it down to an appropriate size. Can you help? Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC):

@TylerDurden8823:, just add |thumb after the file name to create a tidy, framed thumbnail. [[File:ExampleFile.jpg|thumb|caption goes here]]. Thanks for your work! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 06:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's very simple. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ref

thanks your comment. avcept it may be that some causes of psychosis not relevant to schizophrenia. however - there may be some refs in psychosis article that are relevant to schizophrenia, and are not in the schizophrenia article, and - I don't have time to check and copy them across into the schizophrenia article. So putting in this line seemed a safe way to point folk to looking for themselves on the psychosis article. However no worries if you feel inappropriate or unsafe. Thanks so much for all you do in this area of wiki. JCJC777

We already mention and link psychosis in the article. Without a ref to support that the causes are mostly the same we should not include it at this time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Consult + see also

First, why is wrong putting See also section in articles? (See bradycardia) You can't privatise articles and forbid everybody else to edit them.

Second I'd ask you what could these results indicate: ECG shows early reporalisation, blood count - Le count: 3.1, Creatine phosphokinase 130, Lactate dehydrogenase 395? Alex discussion ★ 10:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

One does not put terms in the see also section that are already in the article. This is the guideline and not one I was involved with creating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
All right. Thank you. I'm sorry for not being informed. Can you link me that guideline, because I haven't read it yet. And can you answer the other part of my query? Alex discussion ★ 15:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:See also. And if you read WP:MEDMOS we typically try not use these section in medical articles. With respect to your second question there is not enough details presented. So it could me almost anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you need to know more to give an opinion? Alex discussion ★ 09:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
With respect to what article does this pertain? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at article Traditional Chinese medicine

Greetings! I noticed that you removed the {{pp-sock}} tag I added under the grounds of "...Reverted good faith edits by Jayaguru-Shishya (talk): This tag does not accomplish what you wish it to. (TW)...". What do you exactly mean by does not accomplish what you wish it to? What do I wish? As you can see from the edit history of the article, there has appeared mysterious random ip-addresses that pretty much has no former editing history in the article. Therefore, I think it'd be quite well-reasoned to protect the article from such. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Doing what you did, did not protect the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your answer. Actually, it seems to me that the mysterious ip-address got already banned by another administrator[4] so I think it's okay now. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
He was previously warned to stop following me to other articles. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry QuackGuru but I don't quite see how it is related to the post here what you just said? If you are making an offense against me here in front of an administrator, could you please give us a full list of these supposed articles where I have been following you to? Actually, it seems that you have been following me here since the post is not even about you, unless you are the master of that banned sockpuppet in question. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is your latest edit. How did you find that article? You followed me to that article. I previously told you to stop following me to the acupuncture and TCM pages. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear QuackGuru, I am not following you. How did I find the article? Because I am interested in the subject, that's why. As you can see from the Talk page, I have been contributing to the article with respect to new sources that can be used in the article. Those have also received support from other editors. As you can see, I've been also requested for collaboration by other editor in order to develop the article further.[5]
All the edits I have made in the articles have been briefly discussed at the article Talk page. It is actually you whose editing behaviour have been discussed at two articles already: Traditional Chinese medicine[6][7], and Chiropractic[8]. For the latest edit you were referring to, it's been discussed at the Talk page[9]. It seems it is three editors against one in that discussion.
Few words about your former editing behaviour. You have been banned earlier[[10]] for edit warring the alternative medicine articles. Also, quite recently you have been warned by administrator EdJohnston for edit warring the very alternative medicine articles here: [11],
as well as by another administrator, Tiptoety, here: [12]. "...Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring... //// ...I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions..."
It seems that user QuackGuru has taken this to WP:ANI already (18:48), even before noticing me about it (18:52). Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I did notify you about the ANI report. You haven't given a valid reason why you want to keep a dated source over three decades old for a controversial claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I told you about contributing to sources used in the articles, as well as the current collaboration going on. Nothing to add there. The edit you are referring to, you are standing alone against 3 other editors; it as been discussed already at the Talk page. That one said before as well.
You have been warned multiple times about edit warring; last time today at 07:13[13], and 17:38 [14]. However, it seems that the same editing pattern keeps repeating with you: on 21:02, 9 May 2014 at the article Chiropractic, you made a revert on {{POV}} tag[15]. On 19:18, 14 May 2014, at the very same article, you made your second revert on the very same thing[16]. Taking into account your former ban, your former warning by administrator EdJohnston, as well as your former warning by administrator Tiptoety, it clear that you have not learned your lesson.
The above links prove that user QuackGuru is again involved in an editwar. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You are not here to build an encyclopedia. See WP:BOOMERANG. QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Quack, care to explain to DocJames why you've admitted to being in contact with Edzard Ernst and using his research in a manner that is consistent with being a meat puppet? There is a constant here, and that is many editors from a range of CAM articles having issues with the manner in which QG is editing which is generally non-collaborative, heavy on ownership and tendentious talks. Perhaps this is not the right venue for this discussion due to the obvious COI present. Regards, DVMt (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Quite a hypocritical remark from an Alt Med purveyor with a huge COI there. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
How is there a COI when we have expertise in a specific domain of health? Also, using acupuncture for chronic pain and chiropractic care for MSK issues isn't really fringe, especially when the data suggest comparable effectiveness to standard medical care. How about we discuss the fact that QG is admitted to being in contact with Edzard Ernst, been given research papers from him and then acting on his behalf? Also, he's edited Ernst page and James' page too, which was shortly followed with a barnstar by DJ. That's a legit COI, not simply some random accusation with no evidence to support the claim. Regards. DVMt (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you not acknowledge your COI? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Ducking my question again. Should architects not be able to conduct research on architecture and be able to edit WP on architecture? That red herring COI issue you raised has already been answered several times in WP policy. I can sense that this is not likely to be a productive exchange since you're playing some WP:IDHT. The issue here is QG editing behaviours, including a long Hx of disruptive editing, a yearlong ban at editing alt-med articles, being warned yesterday to quit edit warring at alt-med articles and his admission in being in contact with Edzard Ernst whose page he has edited along with the canvassing here to an admin whose page he's also edited? That's the primary issue here. Regards, DVMt (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I take it that the answer to my question is "No" then? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits on Amblyopia

Hello Jmh649.

Thank you for you insightful review and suggestions. Apparently, I misinterpreted the guidelines. Before I make any more edits, I have a question. Would this article count as a valid reference for the given topic?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/opo.12123/full

Thank you. Synoptik82 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes that looks like a good source. Also WP:MEDHOW can help you with formatting your content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Mini-Suffering State Examination Scale

Hi,

This study is not yet referenced because it is very recent.

To see a recent evaluation and validation of the Mini-Suffering State Examination Scale, by others than Dr. Aminoff, please see for example the following review article:

Suffering Assessment: A Review of Available Instruments for Use in Palliative Care Alicia Krikorian, PhD,1 Joaquı´n T. Limonero, PhD,2 and Matthew T. Corey, MD3 JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE Volume 16, Number 2, 2013

Thanks,

Galia — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaliaMetzger (talk • contribs) 11:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a better ref for use here Krikorian, A (2013 Feb). "Suffering assessment: a review of available instruments for use in palliative care". Journal of palliative medicine. 16 (2): 130–42. PMID 23350831. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The middle ground on suffering scales

Maybe the best resolution would be the middle way: to change the phrase in the text to: Measuring suffering level using existing examination scales could help in placing advanced dementia patients in palliative settings and alternative relief of suffering units. And as a first reference put the Krikorian review article as you have suggested, followed by the reference to Aminoff's article as a second reference because it is the most recent and up to date review article that is out there. -I would be most grateful if you could tell me please what you think regarding this suggestion? GaliaMetzger (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

We typically just use the secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding medical information to Malnutrition page

Actually, I was using a different publication, one by the Bangladesh government publication on malnutrition. Maybe, yes, I made mistakes and stayed too close to the source, but perhaps also in my effort to paraphrase that one I ended up sounding too much like the WHO publication!

http://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/SAM_Guideline.pdf Starting at page 18 (19 in PDF). Cool Nerd (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

regarding Malnutrition

I am sure that a number of UN sources use the same text. Is unicef under a CC BY SA license? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

TB Page

You're absolutely right, the ref does have that. I don't know how I missed that one. Later in the source it does say that in 2012 "at least 1/3 HIV infected people...." and I thought that was the reference. Anyways, I apologize and thank you for correcting my error. -Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkmays (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Adolfo Panfili

Hello, I would like to bring to your attention this article, since I believe that this requires the work of an expert. He's an Italian surgeon who became a strong supporter of the so-called orthomolecular medicine; if you google him, the results are almost exclusively in Italian, and these are often his books, with titles like "blood group diet", "natural remedies for Candida" and so on. As you can see, the article is somewhat little more than a CV and the resonant tones, the lack of unbiased sources and the fact that the creator of this article has contributed solely to that, almost leads me to thinking that it was written by same character for promotional reasons. What do you think? Regards, Khruner (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Will take a look. Do not really edit BLPs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

RE:Talk:Schizophrenia#One sentence simple description of schizophrenia

I replied at the end of the discussion. I found an even simpler and clearer way of wording the lead for Schizophrenia. Let me know on the talk page if I can make the modifications. ATC . Talk 03:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs more discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

RE:RE:Talk:Schizophrenia#One sentence simple description of schizophrenia

Replied and changed the wording again. Let me know if you agree. ATC . Talk 11:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of reliable source.

Any specific reason you want to remove a sociology paper that is a reliable source and making non-medical claims re: safety and effectiveness? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922917/

Try a secondary source per WP:RS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you stating that this source, cannot be used under any circumstance? Can you please point to me to this policy? No medical claims are being made. DVMt (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
If you use exclusively secondary sources your chances of getting any changes to stick are better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. Are you stating that this source, cannot be used under any circumstance? Please keep in mind, there are no medical claims being made. DVMt (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
DVMt was insisting I add the 2014 source to the article but I made a mistake because a new source does not equal a secondary source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I was discussing it at the talk page. Please provide a diff where I insisted it goes in. I simply stated that it was a reliable source and supported the claim being made. Back to my question, I hope you answer it directly, Doc. DVMt (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I hope that this has been settled at the article Talk page, but in case not, and in case the matter is still in the air:
This editor (Jmh) has reasonably asked for a secondary source for the information. Primary sources with breaking scientific discoveries are interesting and relevant sources, but often the information they contain does not reflect the preponderance of scientific opinion. Sometimes it does not yet, sometimes it never will (for being incorrectly performed, impossible to reproduce, etc.). While the mere appearance in a secondary source does not completely address the shortcomings of use of primary sources—e.g., there are now an array of very poor review journals in the molecular biosciences, citation of which does not help—the repeated citation of an article by secondary scientific sources makes it far less likely that Wikipedia editors are including information that in the long term will not be generally accepted or otherwise reliable. A strong sort of argument in response to the demand for secondary sources is the widespread (if not ubiquitous) use of primary sources in WP science articles, including in some touted as the best. Even though this is the case, the point of the cited WP policy (WP:RS) is to move those, and any new articles and citations, toward this ideal, and this editor appears to be working toward that end vis-a-vis the McGregor et al BMC article. Note, in particular, even when WP allows use of primary sources, it specifically precludes their use if citing them requires any interpretation or analysis on the part of the WP editor; is this not applicable in your case? Note also, this editor (Jmh) already pointed you to this policy; to take you more directly, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP ([17]) and WP:PSTS ([18]), which are sections within or related to the larger entree article that Jmh cited.
Bottom line, with respect to scientific content, WP is not the place to popularize and disseminate new scientific discoveries, it is the place for the preponderant scientific view (or views) on a subject, as reflected in refereed secondary scientific sources. If such a source has not appeared in support of the statement(s) appearing, for which McGregor et al are cited, then perhaps it is too soon to make the statement(s). If a good secondary source has already made the same statement, then that is the source to cite in this instance. I hope this helps clarify the ideal toward which this editor and all good WP science editors are striving.
Otherwise, DVMt, I've reviewed your User page and am impressed by your expressed convictions about your scientific interests, and about your commitments to medical editing, and hope that this does not deter you from contributing in your areas of interest. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Leprof 7272, I originally added the primary source and I removed my own mistake. DVMt thinks Secondary sources are not required for non-medical claims. So those sources are in play for the article. Sourced text is being tagged as OR. This is getting out of hand. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Two notes

I will be glad to immediately check text you add, for English usage-related matters, if it would help you. I am second gen American (child of immigrants), and so grew up having to understand and rigorously apply English usage principles, with great scrutiny, so much of this is second nature for me. Then, I did an ivy PhD, and married a BELS editor (hammering the same such home).

Otherwise, please stop in at the steroid article, on occasion, and as opportunity presents, direct solid (secondary source-committed) physiologist/medical type editors there. The article has two good (if frequently sparring) chemistry contributors, but no real consistent and solid biological/medical contributors.

By the by, my elder brother is an ER doc (via West Point, then med school and an Army career). And, otherwise, kudos to your hard work here. Sometimes lets discuss edit counts as the basis for awards. I often edit offline, because I so disfavour the whole notion. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be excellent. Would be happy to discuss edit counts. Yes agree it is not a great metric. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Link removal on Melanoma page

You just removed the link to the Melanoma Resource Centre (http://ejcancer-melanoma.com), referring to the fact that PubMed contains the same information. I think this resource centre can provide additional information since KOLs like Prof. Reinhard Dummer, Dr. James Larkin and Dr. Paolo Ascierto add their editorial comments on these articles.

I also cannot understand why you still accept the eye melanoma page, when this page is removed. Can you update me on this? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maartenvanvulpen (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree that the eye melanoma link is horrible and I have removed. I missed it when it was added. We want people to create content here. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_67&oldid=1140403563"