User talk:Doc James/Archive 71

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doc James. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

→

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

And Techno if you could sign that would be helpful. Also do not edit my user page such as you did here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You're on notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Yes thanks again for notifying me. I had however previously addressed the issues you have raised but we can address them again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re your behaviour. Me thinks you doth protest too much. An innocent person doesn't have to scramble to make a defense. You have admin friends, doesn't excuse your actions. - Technophant (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How could I be so wrong?

I was actually hoping that this was an issue of fraud. That is sick. I am so sorry. It seems that I have been deluded as to the importance of a question. Nobody will die if I get this wrong. As long as I do not somehow write my error into wikipedia, I will not be misleading anybody into believing that symptoms of baby colic and diarrhea can occur together, therefore nobody will find this combination where it did not occur. I will never see the combination. Because of some medical fact that I am not required to know, and for which I would need to read an immense amount of medical literature to to discover, you may never see the combination. It could be that hiding medical impossibilities is an important task on wikipedia. I cannot demand that an emergency room physician be fluent in obscure pediatrics. I can only hope, that if by some freak of nature, this combination shows to him in practice, that he is blessed with an immense degree of medical intuition, so he will know what it means. 75.152.122.129 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I will not go into why I think you should learn this saying, because I want you to figure out for yourself why it is true, and go about disbelieving things that do not serve you. This recording defines brain fart in a way distinct from wikipedia. Having a real doctor dedicate so much time to wikipedia is too good to be true. Let's see if he can also remember the arts of avoiding competition and didactic reasoning. Most people overestimate what they can do in a year, and underestimate what they can do in ten. 75.152.125.166 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to your comment

Hi Doc James, my name is Daniela, and I saw that you left me a message on July 7th referring to my post on Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, in the "Reverse effects" section, in "Cardiovascular" subsection. You said:

"Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks."

I do not know anything about the TRIP database. Most of the articles in PubMed, to my knowledge, are peer reviewed. I've seen at least ten peers on one paper. One exception I know of is editorials with one author. Another exception I know of is articles in Medical hypotheses (magazine) published before a certain date. In addition, some institutions have an external review process before articles are submitted to periodicals. In most cases, more than one authority writes review articles, so while they are peer reviewed, they are usually reviewed with the same editorial perspective. 75.152.125.166 (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw that my post is not there anymore. I suppose is because, as you said in your comment, I used peer-review articles, which I did not know it was not allowed. Can you tell me where can I find this restriction and if it was because of this that my post was delated?

Thanks for your attention and help.

Sincerely,

DanielaDanimora22 (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It is here WP:MEDRS
To find secondary sources you can use pubmed and limit your search to review articles from the last 5 years.

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines (WHO-EM)

Hi, I have been informed that you are the one leaving the WHO-EM society and culture information and while I am glad someone is, I would like to tell you about the problems in your citation. For one, you fail to put a space in between "Essential" and "Medicines" and secondly you do not add "format=PDF" to the cite, which could warning people using their smartphones to access Wikipedia against downloading a PDF. I have been trying to fix these errors myself, but there's a bucket load of them and in case new drugs are added to the list I think it would be best to inform you too. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 00:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Could you please put back the reference of the ICD as it was before? i dont know how to do it. Thanks (vulvodynia) Merid76

The ICD9 code is in the box to the right. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I do understand that without people like you, articles would look like they did in early 2000's, chaotic and filled with misinformation. I want to apologize. I'm not upset at you, I was upset at the situation. I was being attacked from all sides and took it out in the wrong way. Can you forgive me? - Technophant (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Techno take some time and edit other topic areas. Alt med is controversial and thus requires very high quality sources. Take care. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

fibromyalgia

Hi Jmh649 seems like the format I used for these 2 references was not correct. Both references are from Medline-indexed journals with a high impact factor. Can you help me further? This is my 3rd Wiki contribution, therefore I am quite new to this. Much thanks Maharani303

Certainly, for major medicine topics we require secondary sources generally. These include review articles, major position statements, and major textbooks. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment

ok, I will paraphrase all, imagine that english is not my first language. The 2013 vulvodynia guideline update is up to date the newest review article about the topic. I also made some other changes that you reverted for instance I putted vulvar vestibulitis under the definition of vulvodynia, and it was under possible causes. I dont know why you reverted that, seems more logic since vulvar vestivulitis is a subtype of vulvodynia (the most frequent one) and not a cause. Merid76

how do you avoid p copy and paste if you are citing a specific definition given by someone? I think the definition of the ISSVD and the tretatments I had added made the article better! I will try to paraphrase, but don´t you think the article is less complete now? I understand, copy and paste is not an option, but in certain times couldn`t it be? when you are defining something? Meri 11:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes with copy and pasting we often need to go back to the edit before when the issues occurs. With respect to definition yes we even need to paraphrase those. The American Psychiatric Association for example wrote us a letter telling us not to use theirs a while ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely one can quote-and-cite ten words or so? Twenty words? And properly paraphrase the rest ;) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the APA no. But agree maybe, if one is quoting one must however use quotation marks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I am unclear why you would have deleted the links I left on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer. The links were to two books, which I have been given the rights to distribute and there is more information in them, written by established, accredited and noteworthy medical professionals who specialize in the subject matter. I understand that it's not traditional but neither is the idea of publishing current books online for free consumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eachpage (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

We are here to create an encyclopedia not a collection of links to other sources. The project you may be looking for is DMOZ Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Inapplicable Standard to Confounding.

You referred me to a meta-analysis that says SSRIs hav no association (insignificant association, anyway) with CHD. They also said (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.33), which *is* significant. I do not know what they mean, because 95% is the standard for significance in the biological sciences. In any case, WP:MEDRS does not apply to mathematics, which is a field in the Arts.

Have reverted this edit [2] because one may have no effect and one may increase the risk. That is not opposites. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Wikimedia in education: Education program gaining momentum in Israel

Traffic report: The World Cup hangs on, though tragedies seek to replace it

News and notes: Institutional media uploads to Commons get a bit easier

Forum: Did you know?—good idea, needs reform

Featured content: Why, they're plum identical!

Thanks as always for reaching out.

By way of explanation and introduction, assuming you haven't seen it, this is in my post on the talk page of ketamine:

"Bluerasberry, thanks for your response, it is very helpful in understanding the environment at wiki. Maybe this will help regarding my efforts here - I am using my own name and there is this thing called google which covers me quite nicely. If you dig, you'll find that my data changed the telecommunications laws of this country, twice. And the MMJ laws of Arizona. I actually know how to use statistics to tell the truth, a rare skill these days. I simply do not have the time to edit this page in person. I've already got the ACLU signed up to do a Freedom of Information Act request to gain ketamine data from the government - they or someone else would be happy to edit this page as I've described. This effort is not about Advocacy, it is about civil liberties (the right of citizens to know what their government knows) and specifically at Wiki a page that has been driven by interests that did not want an accurate portrayal of ketamine. Ask 10 people about ketamine, and 8 will say it is a horse tranquilizer and drug of abuse. Two weeks ago the wiki page reinforced that image. Now it does so to a lesser degree. My sole objective is to have the definition of ketamine accurately reflect the available data on medicinal and abuse issues. "

Sorry for the lack of humility, but I was forced into establishing credentials, again.

Geraldwgaines (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Request unprotection of candidiasis

I am thinking of doing some work on this page (see the talk page). Please could you unprotect it or reduce the protection to pending changes please? Thank you, 92.41.95.151 (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Hope you are having a good holiday too. 188.31.213.86 (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

FGM

Hi James, just to let you know that I've submitted FGM for peer review, prior to (possibly) submitting it for FAC. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Female genital mutilation/archive1, in case you'd like to comment, but don't feel obliged. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. The temporary lack of JSTOR is making it too difficult to check things (the Wikipedia Library is currently re-organizing access), so I've closed the peer review and I'll re-open at some point when JSTOR is back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Highly Contagious Tuberculosis

Dear Dr. Heilman,

Re the section on transmission on the tuberculosis page, the existence of highly contagious TB strains should be acknowledged.

Sincerely, Hugh Hixon 70.177.9.13 (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)hugh@alcor.org

^[1]

^ http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/23/science/new-strain-of-highly-contagious-tuberculosis-is-identified.html?pagewanted=all

1997 NYTs article. Would need a better source. Will look Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply posted to ongoing thread

I posted my reply to your comment at User talk:QuackGuru#Refs into body rather than here to maintain the thread of conversation (I guess I am more pig headed than I realized). Thanks for your contributions and input. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Deass back at it

I just reverted a slew of edits at Imatinib that appear to be this user, editing as an IP. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

added new IP address to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nuklear#23_July_2014 Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

another 86.31.10.89 - last contrib was an outing attempt and should be deleted. do you know how to do that? Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

another today 86.23.124.71 Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/86.23.124.71 happily editing away... he keeps popping up an articles i watch. maybe Zad68? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog I blocked that IP... if this keeps going we'll have to ask for a range-block. Zad68 02:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

with ORS, we may end up making the same mistake as with infant formula.

Okay, let's start with the premise that parents in poor parts of the world are just as intelligent as you and I, they simply may not have the formal schooling in science. They might get the idea that infant formula is 'more scientific' or otherwise 'better' for their baby, and certainly some of the marketing of Nestle Corp. and other companies imply this.

We might end up making a similar mistake in the way we promote ORS as 'better' or 'more scientific,' even without the profit motive on our part. If parents end up giving their child nothing till they make a four-hour bus trip to pick up a packet of ORS, we haven't exactly done them any favor.

I think we're better off putting forward the approach of the WHO publication, basically to start early and often with available home fluids, the salted and unsalted rice water, the lightly salted yogurt, the weak unsweetened tea, the whole range. This seems to be the major recommendation. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241593180.pdf page 9 (13 in PDF)

Doc James, honest to gosh, I think we might end up poorly communicating if we have a picture which only shows the ORS packets. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add an image of the components of a homemade solution Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

HOW ABOUT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HELL IT IS YOU CHANGE BEFORE CHANGING IT

Are you deaf? You're reverted much more than just format. Fix that, or get blocked for edit warring. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You did not reply to the talk page and there is clear consensus against you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and in the mean time, you've made citations inconsistent, removed identifiers, links, and a million other things that I fixed, and the 30 other citations are all multiline. STOP BREAKING THINGS, you're a bull in a china shop. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Would have reverted all your edits except another yes had made some good ones in the middle. You appear to mix some positive with some negative changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

All the changes were positive. The only thing you need to do is press "delete" after the line breaks, not revert. You'd have known that if you paid attention. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Will figure out a better way to fix the rest rather than reverting. Please do not change the refs form one line to many lines for medical articles. BestDoc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, appears Zad has figured it out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Relevant Quotation to this discussion.

I am proud that you chose a discussion option. I hope you understand my bias in favour of extending WP:AGF to many PubMed documents that you may hav excluded out of hand in the past with your recent changes patrolling and loyalty to your fans on wikipedia. I hope you accept that there may be many exceptions to the safety of SSRIs in stratified data.

Human language is like a cracked kettle on which we beat out tunes for bears to dance to, while all the time we are meaning to move the stars to pity.
— Gustave Flaubert

Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.156.178.30 (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There is the odd exception when a primary source might be appropriate and typically they are only appropriate until a decent secondary source appears. Most of the time primary sources are not appropriate. And this is the feeling of the majority of the medical editing community. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

SSRI -- what's that you say?

In the SSRI article, you wrote: "While TCAs may increase the rate of coronary heart disease SSRIs due to appear to affect the risk."

I can't make sense of this sentence. --Hordaland (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted the wording some more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Epilepsy

Yes, I did. Very nice of you, thanks very much. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That's fine too, but while you've described the national headquarters function, the affiliates provide direct supportive services. So you've actually now made it less accurate instead of more. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The next sentence mentions that they provide support groups. Is there other supportive services? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should learn about an organization before you "correct" someone else's edit about it. See for yourself. The services vary by affiliate; here is an example. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We go by the references we are using. Thus I went by the ref you provided. Additionally we use independent references rather than the organization itself usually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way supportive care means palliative care which I am sure is not what you meant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; I said (and meant) supportive services, in the non-medical sense, not supportive care. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-coagulant Activity of SSRIs; Accuracy of Summaries

I understand why you did this: The information was already under bleeding, which should be a subsection of "cardio-vascular". "Redundancy under Bleeding" would've been a more accurate summary. To remind you of orthodoxy before someone wrote an overly simple editorial here, it is not normal to remove epidemiology when a review supports it. That way, people can know not only what trustworthy reviewers know, but what they are relying upon. Citations in a review relevant to anti-coagulants and SSRIs should include both studies on anti-coaglant mechanisms (SERT), and supporting material for a mechanism in the fact that citalopram and escitalopram (the most serotonin-specific drugs in this class) have the strongest effect on bleeding (when combined with Aspirin, for example). Documenting the mechanism lets pharmacists advise psychiatrists to use less serotonin-specific anti-depressants when this effect becomes a problem; when Aspirin is for pain, and not a heart medication. I realize that goes against advice from your favourite editorial. I do not mind if you use that editorial as a starting point for selecting sources. Deleting both the facts and the sources, just because you did not find material designed for use (a review) is not a good idea. We are not here to dumb articles down to basis for practise. We are here to wise people up to how pharmacologists learn to advise them. You are good at tersening and clarity, you always score when you find a link, and her paraphrasal was not a cut and paste; "Rephrasing and linking" would've been a more accurate summary. /JWL 75.156.178.30 (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Bleeding and cardiovascular are different. Already dealt with in the section and we should use secondary sources as this is the consensus of the majority. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit summary is a lie. That's when you deleted a source, and you must've known I would be looking for it. To say nothing nice, say no thing. Nothing is something nice. Silence is golden. Fix the problem, not the blame. Lies are not nice. Are you trying to start an edit war? 75.156.178.30 (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunscreen History Edit.

Hello James,

In response to your over-ruling edit on sunscreen, can you please enlighten me with why the following statement is allowed on Wikipedia:

"The first effective sunscreen may have been developed by chemist Franz Greiter in 1946. The product, called Gletscher Crème (Glacier Cream), subsequently became the basis for the company Piz Buin (named in honor of the place Greiter allegedly obtained the sunburn that inspired his concoction), which is still today a marketer of sunscreen products.[17] It has been estimated that Gletscher Crème had a sun protection factor of 2."

which is resourced on a webarchive here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100512061324/http://www.pizbuin.com/v1/en/brand_story.html

which simply states at the last bullet point that:

"1946 - Prof. Franz Greiter invents the world's first sun protection product."

Where are the clinical references to that statement?

Whilst neither myself nor Bridgedragon have added any references to our statements, it appears that the the above statement from an old webpage (now archived) is also not referenced.

I will endeavour to back up our statements in regard to the South Australian, Milton Blake and will repost to Wiki when fixed.

Thank you

ps - not to nit-pick....but the referral to the TRIP website is not welcome. Searching for "Sunscreen Development History" will give you 237 articles to review...none of which actually have any relevance to the development history of sunscreen (at least the 236 articles I read through - maybe it's in the last place I looked!).

Yes the existing content is not good either. Adding copy and pasted text however is worse. Try google books. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I vrite on your page reply on mien) 09:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why reinvent the wheel - cc is an easy eye catcher and the link to the reference backs up the research. Only part of my edit was cc's. Bridgedragon, whom I have not met, was much more concise in his/her edit - yet you deemed that cc'd as well?? I'm meeting with Milton Blake's grandson over the next week or so to clarify the references. In the meantime, try Smarties 😃.

What do you mean by "cc"? Creative commons? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I vrite on your page reply on mien) 00:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep - fair call...carbon copy. Should be c&p shouldn't it. For your future reference, c&p shall mean "Copy and Paste". Thanks for highlighting your CDO (Compulsive Disorder Obsessive)

Also, your reference here..

http://www.skincancer.org/publications/the-melanoma-letter/summer-2012-vol-30-no-2/effective-sunscreen

is confusing. Above the Sunscreen History section, there is a paragraph that suggests the first commercially available sunscreen was introduced in the US in 1928! Whilst you only referenced the section in Sunscreen history that claims it was probably developed in 1938 and not in common use until 1944. So which reference should we believe? Why do you deem http://www.skincancer.org more reputable than http://www.humantouchofchemistry.com when clearly they [skin cancer.org] are also able to confuse data?

Replaced with a better ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In the long history of sunscreen, there are many notable events with good (if not perfect) references. It's fine to tag deficient citations for attention, and of course it's important to avoid copyright violations, but let's not throw out useful encyclopedic information unless it's truly discredited. It might be helpful to move this discussion to the Talk:Sunscreen page. —Patrug (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If the sources suck that it is sometimes fine to delete it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes, certainly. Often it's more constructive to add template flags like {{Refimprove}} and {{Copypaste}}, so other editors can see exactly what needs improving. ("Mend it, don't end it.") Thanks for all your help! —Patrug (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Good idea Patrug (moving to the sunscreen talk page)...thanks for the good edit in the history section. As mentioned, I'll be meeting with the Hamilton founders' grandson next week to clear up his development history with sunscreen. Hamilton sunscreen's about page - http://hamiltonsun.com.au/about/ - explains the history of their product quite well. Best regards - Brett

And how do we move it to the sunscreen talk page? Can I leave that up to you😃 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basenine (talk • contribs) 07:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Done, including a few related discussions — and then underneath I tried to summarize with a "current status" subsection. Great if we can continue the topic there, instead of scattered across 6 pages! Thanks. —Patrug (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Random barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	I haven't given out enough of these over the years. Long overdue. Thanks for keeping up the work. Note: according to Lim et al 2013, barnstars reduce participation. That's not the intended effect! II \| (t - c) 07:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And appreciate the paper. Have not seen this one. Definately need to read it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Opinion, please

I posted a request for opinions on Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome at WT:MEDRS a few days ago but still haven't drawn even a single response. To my untrained eyes, this looks like a couple experimental results masquerading as established medical science and I'd be inclined to nominated it to AfD -- but not before I know if I'm on solid ground. Can you comment, please? Msnicki (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We have a review here [3]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already seen that article. But that's a WP:PRIMARY source. Notice how he talks about his own patient. Msnicki (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Under publication type, pubmed lists it as a review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We also have [4] in a fairly decent journal. ANd [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I agree those are helpful. The earlier one, no matter how it's labeled, is clearly not a review. If you pull up and read the article, they're discussing their own work. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Book review: Knowledge or unreality?

Recent research: Shifting values in the paid content debate

News and notes: How many more hoaxes will Wikipedia find?

Wikimedia in education: Success in Egypt and the Arab World

Traffic report: Doom and gloom vs. the power of Reddit

Featured content: Skeletons and Skeltons

Vandalism

Hi James, we have an IP address that appears to be vandalism-only account here that may warrant some form of a block: 151.228.111.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Will look Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The contribution or talk page really shows everything. They've already received a few nice warnings to stop vandalizing and continue to do so anyway. Thanks for having a look. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Re Ref

Hello Doc, can you point me to the reference you think doesn't meet MEDRS? Notice that i used a PNAS (which is a peer-reviewed journal) reference for my last addition at Ebola virus disease, or what do you mean? prokaryotes (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a primary research study and not a secondary source such as a review article [6] You can limit your pubmed searches to just reviews. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

ok. prokaryotes (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ebola rewrite

Thanks James. Not quite sure what I did for that, but you're certainly doing great work there. Buon viaggio! 31.48.175.145 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

In case of doubt...

I am not trying to pick a fight. This is a long running concern. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Happy to have here. Agree it is a concern. Feel free to cut primary sources aggressively and add more balance to articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps we can discuss at some point. Until lets focus on shared goals. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Re CNN news

So there is in part an ongoing event, and mainstream media is reporting the progress of a patient. Are you suggesting we shouldn't mention his case in regards to the treatments? There is a part on the 2014 outbreak page mentioning the case, do you suggest i could add it there, since most sources from that article are from the mainstream media. I can understand to keep the research section sources strictly per medical sources MEDRS but covering the outbreak requires more sources. prokaryotes (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree should go on outbreak page Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we keep the addition or do you want me to move it? I think we should keep treatment research in one place. prokaryotes (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved it, added link. prokaryotes (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Quinvaxem page deletion

hi J, the content was pasted word for word in a few instances to maintain consistency of data and content.

please advise on how to go about re-instating the page Nnayak83 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

We are never allowed to copy and paste content. All content must be paraphrased or else we run into copyright issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So can i re-create the page with paraphrased text to avoid these in the future, thanks, its my first page as all. Nnayak83 (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes you may. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a ton Nnayak83 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Vaporous Hyperoxia Therapy

Hello Jmh649,

Thank you for the input. I am going to improve the article by changing the apparent advertising tone.

The main purpose of mentioning VHT in the "Hyperbaric medicine" article is create an internal link and avoid the VHT article being flagged as an orphan.

You wrote in your comments to edits: "this article is not about HBO as this treatment does not provide HBO)" The section titled "Alternative treatments" does not pretend that VHT provides HBO. Its purpose is to present, for balance in the article, alternative treatments other than VHT. Yes, your statement is correct.

I believe that the section "VHT protocol" should not be deleted because it the only section that gives a closer and detailed explanation into the inner working of the treatment. Many other articles on treatment do the same.

Since you are an expert in this field, I will still rely on your judgement and suggestions. Please let me know. Thank you. Bostonscribe (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It just needed better references. Please see WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

for the gentle reminder re page numbers. :) And for all of your help yesterday! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Antipsychotics

I've started reworking this article, which focuses too much in my opinion on whether the drugs should be used (there is 100% agreement on this point among professional treatment guidelines) and too little on how they are used and a more detailed evaluation of outcomes than a simple "bad or good".

Your input would be appreciated if you have time.

Thanks, Formerly 98 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Asprin

He James, I think that the recent edit you made at Asprin may have overlooked reviews more recent than the 2007 recommendations, or even the existing 2012 citations. Mind taking another gander? PMID 24074752 PMID 24605250 PMID 24714632 refer. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)