Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70→Archive 75

Your recent interview in the Atlantic

Hi User:Jmh649, Your recent interview for the Atlantic magazine was of interest to me since one of the topics you had covered was discussed between myself and another user earlier this year. During the question and answers with Julie Beck you were asked at one point about the general quality of the medical articles and stated that it was under 1% for the highest graded articles. In my separate discussion with another user, we had started to talk about a "quality funnel" of what percentage of articles on Wikipedia are of high quality in comparison to all of them and the ratio was 151:1 from 2 or 3 months ago. The exact number from this is 0.67% for the proportion of top grade articles to all others, which resembles a funnel with a very wide base leading to a very narrow spout. The precise number from early 2014 is very close to your estimate of 1% in your interview with Julie Beck. I thought the confirmation and the precise number might be of interest. FelixRosch (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

My estimate is the number of GA + FAs in medicine divided by the total number of medical articles. Are you numbers for Wikipedia as a whole? Have not looked at it by importance yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The numbers we computed were for FA+GA+A for all articles divided by total number of all articles as a whole. At the time (the turn of this year) the medicine numbers were not at hand, though I would gladly do the computation if you can provide the current table for medicine articles. Regarding your larger project of improving medicine-related articles in general, I have recently looked at the pages for Dyslexia and for Aphasia, both of which are at "B" level, and both need much effort with Dyslexia only slightly better. If you would be interested in improving either one of these to a top level article, perhaps jointly, then let me know which one you would prefer as a starting point. My "patch" edits on Dyslexia have made it clear to me that the narrative quality in both the articles deserves much better treatment. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree that their is definitely a look of work to do. Working more on just improving leads of articles right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

thanks for pointing out the broken text - it slipped out of my attention and I hadn't completed editing that piece as for the new text about planned csections, it is referenced just the same as the previous text - all the links are at the end 85.211.98.77 (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay certainly. Remember to put the ref right behind the sentence that it supports. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"yes history was sexest"

Hi, you reverted my edit in the article Sexually transmitted disease, saying "Restored previous historical image, yes history was sexest." Yet the article is not only about history but STD in general, so I see no reason why the first image on top of the page should be clearly sexist and misogynist. --Kaldur (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A dish of cells is not exactly better as it says less about STIs in general. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments made on definitions on 3 pages

Have left comments on the talk pages for improving definitions on: subcutaneous emphysema, bronchiectasis and then on ejection fraction in heart failure. The first two are really simple things, but the last is more complex. I've left references etc that I hope help. Thanks! Hildabast (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And I forgot to mention HFNEF (Heart failure with normal ejection fraction). Hildabast (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

So I made changes, Quackguru decided he didn't like them and reverted them, and just before the 3 revert rule would've applied to him, you magically came along and reverted me. I see what kind of game you wikipedia gangsters are playing. Ricflairsbutt (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes you continue to remove well refered material and you will no longer be able to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey for editors who mentor newcomer

Dear Wikipedia Ambassador,

I am seeking input on your experience as a mentor to new Wikipedians. This survey is designed to provide insight for the development of a new mentorship support tool on Wikipedia. If you have a moment, please take this survey, it should not take more than 10 minutes of your time to complete.

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V2SSrhU2NFOVAV

Also, if you are able to, I would greatly appreciate it if you would send the following survey to the mentee you worked with:

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V1quUdMZ1By3Ah

Thank you in advance for your participation, Gabriel Mugar 13:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Levelledout, 3RR

Thank you for your most kind message informing me that I have violated the 3RR rule. However I think you will find that firstly, I made only two reverts in the 24 hours to which you refer or anywhere approaching that period (the first edit was a bog standard edit). Secondly I think you will find that the 3RR actually states that "an editor must not perform *more* than three reverts". In future perhaps it would be best to leave enforcement of rules to the people that enforce them, the admins. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levelledout (talk • contribs) 11:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This was simply a heads up before you do violate the rule. Depending on how you count your edits but you have either made 2 or 3 reverts. Your knowledge however seems to surpass the number of edits you have made with this account so I guess it was really not needed. Enforcement as you state will definately be left to another admin as I am involved but than again you already know that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Well if I am wrong in some way then that makes two of us. I do however apologise for losing my temper. Yes I am relatively new here, I have never attempted to claim otherwise, but I have tried to read up on policy and guidelines as much possible before getting fully involved and continue to do so. To be honest my objection arises from the fact that the reverts that you refer to were made out of pure frustration that other editors were continually reverting any constructive edits and refusing to engage in discussion to reach a consensus. I'm not primarily referring to yourself here although I did feel that you were rather unwilling to compromise. I also get the impression that you view WP:MEDRS as far more important than WP:NPOV, have I got the wrong end of the stick?Levelledout (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
With respect to WP:CON those proposing a new change need to show consensus before it is made. I hope that we have made some progress on at least one of the concerns you have raised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
My frustrated reaction to gross disregard of WP:CON is partially the reason we are having this conversation. In anycase, WP:CON is unrelated to whether you consider WP:MEDRS to be substantially more important than WP:NPOV.Levelledout (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

About nature source

I check the source from nature which define the TCM as pseudoscience. This source is [1]. Actually this article tries to refute another article which is also from nature [2]. The second one describe some opinion, one of them is to use system biology as a way to assess the usefulness of tcm. I just wonder whether it is good to use one article in nature as the view of nature journal while ignore others which are also from nature. Despite article [3] which is also from nature 448 in 2007, I see another article from journal nature [4] which describe the usefulness (for dementia) of TCM. This article was published in 2010 and stated " Sound therapeutic effects promote more scientists, domestic and abroad, to study extracts from herbal medicines. Today, a great number of compounds from herb extracts have proven to be multi-targeted, low toxicity and potent in alleviating dementia." It seems there are many articles which present different idea in nature [5]. I wonder whether to add all of these sources from nature to keep neutrally. I hope someone can check all of these articles from nature journal [6]. Now I think one editorial in nature is a neutral description in this article but whatever, add the website link for the reference is a good way for reader to follow up the source.

We need to use secondary sources. Which source are you proposing? And for what content? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

How to cite

Re your edit just now, isn't it the case that this doesn't work with some browsers, ie Internet Explorer (or some versions)? I can't use it at CRUK for example, where IE 7 I think is standard, & the IS people are cautious over introducing new software. A note should probably be added. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah did not realize. Will re added the other one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - CRUK are just switching to IE 10, so I've got my fingers crossed .... Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Salvinorin B ethoxymethyl ether

An article that you have been involved in editing, Salvinorin B ethoxymethyl ether, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Deass

Just so you know, User:Deass who you recently blocked is clearly the latest incarnation of User:Nuklear/User:Yid/User:Aschwole who has been repeatedly blocked for copyright violations. ChemNerd (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Terminology

Hi, I seem to recall you (I think it was you, not sure though) mentioning that "patients" is prohibited terminology and I'd like to know, if it is you that said it, what's your evidence (i.e. talk pages containing consensus on the matter) that supports this. As I have found a featured article that uses this terminology extensively and I'd like to feel confident about editing it to remove said prohibited terminology. I read WP:MEDMOS and while it certainly discouraged said terminology it didn't really give a yes or no answer. Brenton (talk|email) (I automatically watch all pages I edit) 17:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for your time, in advance. Brenton (talk|email) (I automatically watch all pages I edit) 17:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is discouraged per WP:MEDMOS. There are a few situations where it must be used but this should be rare. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Prefered refs

We like seeing our ref like "text text.[1]"

We do not like our refs like "text text" [2]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

Wikipedia Weekly

The Real-Life Barnstar
For looking into that dodgy piece of research about Wikipedia's coverage of medicine and doing this interview. Yaris678 (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I found out about your work after having the interview highlighted to me at wmuk:Engine room#BBC article - Wikipedia and health. Yaris678 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :-) With respect to this study, while we appreciate constructive criticism this paper wasn't as the data did not support the conclusions. It is sad that the popular press is so keen on sensationalism and so uninterested in verifying the stories they print.
Thankfully we at Wikipedia actually provide reliable sources for what we contain. And we do not allow the popular press to be used for supporting medical content due to the issues around the accuracy of the popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps see this article

…which will on short order become a candidate for redaction and merger: Candocuronium iodide. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

It was nice to meet you at #WikiConUSA reception last night. Thanks for all of the work you do and for coming out to NYC for the conference.

By the way, are those stats on editors who contribute the most to Med articles and the most popular Med articles posted anywhere, the ones you said Andrew pulled together? I'd be interested in looking them over. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

They are here [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@Liz Read! Talk!, Doc, envy you both time and geography, to be able to connect with other esteemed editors. The thought, Liz and Doc in same place; am so sad. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Will you be in London at Wikimania? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your quick edit

Your quick edit on Aphasia was appreciated. From the last comments you made last week on your general Medicine FA plans and your Atlantic magazine interview, I did get the current stats for Medicine and computed the number which you called "under 1%" as being 0.7055% as of this date. That makes the "quality ratio" for Medicine slightly ahead of the general Wikipedia ratio which is 0.667. The text enhancement edits on the respective wikipages for Dyslexia and Aphasia I had previously mentioned to you are now completed. Both of those pages are at a low to middle "B" class, and if you have any further thoughts for enhancing them to a higher peer-review level then maybe you could mention them to either myself or one of the wikiprojects. FelixRosch (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

OTRS query

Great to meet you at the WikiConference. I was intending on going to a different session, but Lane hinted that your session would be better, and he was right. If it won't go to your head, it was easily the best session.

I am writing because I just fielded an OTRS ticket from a Doctor who is a Cochrane contributor and wondered if some work he is doing is suitable for Wikipedia.

I sent him a response asking for permission to copy the contents and send it to you. I promised, on your behalf, that you would either respond directly or point him to a person who can. Hope that is OK:) Is this something that I should send to User:Nikkimaria? --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy to be involved. User:FloNight may also be good to get involved as she is the Cochrane Wikipedian in residence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Heart failure

So the medical information is all accurate? Because that is not my expertise. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are really a doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.72.10 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup a doctor with horrible spelling and grammar. Have just worked on the lead and it reflects the best available evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

Wondering if we crossed signals. Please answer at the talk page [8]. DVMt (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

ADHD

Thank you Jmh649 for reviewing my edits, and I will make sure to use a better source next time. Why did you take off my wording which said "multiple major life activities". This was added by me to add information to the article because many people (including the readers) think that ADHD mainly impacts just educational outcome and that is not true. Robert4565 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I reviewed the DSM 5 and added text based on the DSM which mentions "social and work life". The bolding you added was strange by the way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I only made it bold to indicate that the symptoms impair just that, "multiple major life activities". The article mainly talks about educational outcome and not the "big picture". Your comment made it clear though about activities the disorder can have on different areas of life. Thank you. Robert4565 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We use very little bolding here on Wikipedia. I do agree that it affects other aspects of life. And agree that the content you added was important. Hope this works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

"National Institute for Health and Care Excellence"

"National Institute for Health and Care Excellence" - such organizations should always be given a country. In this case it in fact only covers England and Wales, not the UK - see the article. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"compare the two"?

Hi James. Not sure what you mean by "compare the two" in this edit summary. I feel we really need to change paragraph there. We've just said why we think the paper is invalid. (Period...) Then we start on the separate question of how the data were generated. A big topic change, imo. Cheers, 86.181.64.67 (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC) -- greetings from Coventry!

Compare these two difs [9] A huge number of changes have been made. I am trying to look them over. We also need to shorten and simplify the English. But I need to sleep. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, now I understand... Yes, I wasn't sure whether to post consecutively. I decided to follow Looie's example. But if you like I can quickly work up a version with striking/underlining to highlight the differences. Pleasant dreams! 86.181.64.67 (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, James. I'll back off for now if you prefer. I do enjoy collaborative work and it's always a pleasure to work with you :) 86.181.64.67 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, done. 86.181.64.67 (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hackpad for Evaluating WikiProjects

Hackpad Harej (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Now on IdeaLab! Harej (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

I note the archive thingy you added to QG's Talk page. If I copy that and substitute "Roxy the dog" for QG, onto my Talk page, would it work for me, automagically? I wouldn't have to understand all that complicated code stuff? Please don't spend any more time than a simple yes or no requires on this query !! Thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it should. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Let's see what happens, and thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you very much Jmh649 for editing and contributing greatly to medical articles. I highly respect editors like you who do all this work without payRobert4565 (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks and appreciate you joining us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw that you have removed eMedicine links from Template:Infobox disease assuming that the links do not work anymore. But as a matter of fact, it has two segments to it. The ones with {{eMedicine2|article|1230457}} work properly but ones with {{eMedicine2|med|1230457}} and related subjects other than article work no more. I think some appropriate intervention is required, else there would be huge loss of resources from Wikipedia. DiptanshuTalk 17:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Emedicine is such as poor source. Happy to discuss further. We should use something better. We are looking at patient.co.uk Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Irrespective of the arguement whether the articles on emedicine were up to the mark, many of the Wikipedia articles contained references and links from emedicine in the format article/12345. I feel that losing those links would mean good loss to Wikipedia. This loss needs to be minimised or avoided. Adding or supplementing better sources can come thereafter and these two are not mutually exclusive. DiptanshuTalk 05:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
As there are so many concerns with emedicine not sure if it should be in the infobox. I did post this a couple of places, waited a week or so and than as there was some support removed it. Would you be able to help add patient.co.uk? It is a better site less full of advertising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Read the article but that did not help much. I understand that sources with information intended towards doctors might not always be suitable for lay patients. Writing the articles in simpler terms is not easy especially without loss of critical information. Things are not often so simply represented in eMedicine but still I feel that it is an important source of information, especially for doctors. So, just dropping the links from Wikipedia outright may constitute a big loss of information or information source. So, I would strongly insist that at least retains the eMedicine links in external links section. DiptanshuTalk 09:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you want to start a discussion at WT:MED? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think that should be good. Currently however, I have some time crisis which limits me from serial interactions. Can you take it forward on my behalf and I would join in whenever I find a scope? DiptanshuTalk 05:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I have already started a discussion at WT:MED as you had suggested. Requesting you to participate there. DiptanshuTalk 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

References

This page WP:MEDHOW will help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Lagoset (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Quantiferon Gold test

On the Tuberculosis page, it's missing Quantiferon Gold test, which is used for latent TB ;) 129.180.159.8 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey

I just wanted to say it was lovely finally getting to meet you at Wikiconference. Thank you coming! Zell Faze (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes was excellent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Pancreas

The lead of our article didn't in fact tell you where it is (it does now). Most readers don't read the "whole article", just the lead or the first para of it. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I left the location of the pancreas. Agree that is an important bit. Trimmed a bit of the function stuff. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It's worth looking at the NHS Choices pretty short main page here, which goes into even more detail than I did. Otherwise people may think you can just chop it out like the appendix. Brain tomorrow I expect. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
NHS choices does not have intralinks though. Thus I cannot click on pancreas to learn more. While we do.
With pancreatic cancer sometimes one can chop it out like the appendix (replacing digestive enzymes and insulin is relatively easy). But as we say in the last line of the first paragraph usually the cancer has spread by the time of diagnosis thus simply chopping it out is often not enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Assistance needed in Academic Dispute

I would very much like to have your opinion Doc James in the "Assistance needed in Academic Dispute" in Wikiproject Medicine. I think a great wrong has been committed as I have outlined. You are a tireless worker and supremely dedicated to fairness in Wikipedia, as I have noted. Thanks in advance.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Typically am only involved with disease related topics. No so much involved with the history of medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your message today

Hi Doc, Thanks for your tips. My edit was removed. Was that because I didn't use published data? I am new to this. I have never tried to edit Wikipedia before, Was not even aware this was something I could do. I am a breast cancer survivor and saved my own hair using cold caps. See the link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6935hpVeeDY

Perhaps you would consider helping me figure out how to put back the information on preventing alopecia? Thanks, Tricia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.117.97 (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We require high quality sources for content on Wikipedia. What counts as a high quality source is listed here WP:MEDRS. We would need this from a review article or a major medical textbook. Personal experience cannot be used. Welcome to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jmh649. Might I ask why you removed my addition to the PCOS page about a month ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwoody08 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It says in the edit summary "1) please use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS 2) insulin resitance is not due to B cell dysfynction." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks James

For beefing up the Bipolar disorder article lead. It's far more robust than it was before. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Weight Loss Page - Edits Reverted

Good morning Jmh649,

I am a bit confused why you chose to revert my additions to the Weight Loss page. Wikipedia states that references from Medical Journals are acceptable sources in the link that you referred to.

Thanks for your time, Adam

--Atsmith227 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

What you added was a primary source. We need secondary sources for medical content. These are types of pubmed articles. We also need sources from the last 10 years. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Mebendazole

I worked on this a little today. The only notable problem was difficulty finding a reference for the continued availability of the drug in international markets, which seemed quite important given that the article says that it is no longer sold in the US. I broke the rules a little bit and referenced an interesting little database called zenrx.org (be careful not to go to the .com site, its a porno site).

I'll take a run at abendazole next since its practically the same drug. Best, Formerly 98 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks, I haven't referenced a paper book in years. I'll take a look. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, and query

Jhm, Kudos, my brother was an ER doc, West Point, and then on to med school, and a career as an army doc. At one point he was with the 3rd Armored in Germany, doing emergency surgery on the backs of M1 Abrams tanks. Glad someone with your background is writing. I was on faculty in Chem (main campus) and Pharmacol (med school), until I took leave of academia.

Wondering, what brought you to the Natural Products article this point in time? Boghog reach out to you? Did you see there is a "general course of article discussion" going on in talk? Lots of talk! (I was just surprised that someone both your background and reputation would jump in, and not leave anything substantial about the biggest of your changes, at Talk.)

RSVP here, please. I am on to an Admin tomorrow about this article, and want to have straight what is going on. Cheers, and again, look forward to seeing more of your work. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Saw a flurry of activity so poked my head in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Check the above, again, was not quite done when you arrived. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Grados, OB (1975 Apr). "[The laboratory in programs for enteric infection control]". Boletin de la Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana. Pan American Sanitary Bureau. 78 (4): 318–22. PMID 123456. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Grados, O. B. (1975). "El laboratorio en los programas de control de las infecciones entéricas". Boletin de la Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana. Pan American Sanitary Bureau (in Spanish). 78 (4): 318–322. PMID 123456. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_68&oldid=1081165928"