Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

[edit]

Consecutive citations

[edit]

Sorry, I didn't know that. Why is that, btw? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We more or less ref every sentence. This makes it easier to figure out what ref supports what if content is moved around. We often hide the earlier ones using <!-- --> Keeps people from adding citation needed tags. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

need ur help

[edit]

Hoi Dr. Neither I know u well nor u know me. So I want to introduce my self . my name is romit Patel. I am from India. I am studying in 12 sci. I have chosen biology as my main subject. I want to find out drug which cure Aids. I know it not easy as many scietist in doing same and u will think a boy studying in 12 what he will do but I want to do reaserch on the dead is Aids n want to invent vaccine. So what filed I have to choose like biotechnology or farmacy.plz help me. I also want to know each detalis of the desaise so what should I refer to know plzz do reply...

Thx ... From Romit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romitpatel010 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an overview of the topic here HIV/AIDS Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

[edit]

Dear doc James, the paywall of peer reviewed literature is not the only way to find the truth. Opinions in by neuroimmunologists on venous pathology and therapy reflect violation of the basic academic principal that one's opinion is only worth listening to when it is restricted to your own area of expertise. my statements tell a more accurate story and are supported by the references that are there. ~LaFemmeMSketteer~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFemmeMSketeer (talk • contribs) 04:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. Please use review articles. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content

[edit]

Is well supported by the refs provided. Take it to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have newer reliable sources saying something else. // Liftarn (talk)
Ah do we? While bring them to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Circumcision shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. // Liftarn (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you first attempt to add a tag with no claim.[1] Than here claim that "newer sources says otherwise"[2] without providing said sources. You then restore it a third time [3] and finally provide the source in question and it is from 2011 making it older than all the sources supporting the current content [4]. Finally you come here after I warned you for edit warring. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

[edit]

I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 4 February

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small Pox - Ali_Maow_Maalin - 26th October 1977.

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smallpox&oldid=645727375

Please see/refer:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977#mediaviewer/File:Smallpox.jpg

Photo Credit: Content Providers(s): CDC Original uploader was Bryan Derksen at en.wikipedia - This media comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Image Library (PHIL), with identification number #3. Note: Not all PHIL images are public domain; be sure to check copyright status and credit authors and content providers.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/smallpox-images/smallpox3.htm

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Smallpox.jpg

https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Simon-Northup-Gets-Smallpox

https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/preparedness/factsheet_smallpox_pro.shtm

Boy with smallpox. Face.This is an image which has been used to represent Ali_Maow_Maalin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Maow_Maalin


How do you justify 1969 origin of this image? Please tell.

Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. http://phil.cdc.gov/phil/details.asp?pid=3 Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not revert my edit as the last documented case needs to be shown.Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That boy is NOT the last known case. We do not need to show it in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many times in Wikipedia the important facts are highlighted with pictures or by putting them in the article twice, especially in the beginning.Please enlighten on last known case if not this , apart from Wikipedia. Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture you added is wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977. Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks have removed that one as it to is incorrect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK that you have removed even my text edit which was new information .I am not interested in any discussion on this. Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mintop Solution page

[edit]

Hi Doc James,

This is regarding the Mintop Solution page.

Could you please guide on the how to work around this? I see a lot of pages on branded drugs/medicines/etc that are have not been directed to the generic brand name page. They are standalone product pages. Some examples are Tylenol, Benadryl, Saridon, etc.

regards, Nupur --NupurPathak (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes occasionally. But we are moving more and more away from this. And this only applies for very well known brand names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc James,

Mintop Solution is actually a very well known topical hair fall solution in India and the only one of its kind. No other topical hair fall solution in India uses the same Minoxidil concentration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NupurPathak (talk • contribs) 11:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Doc James,

I don't think it's fair to block this page, especially since several other branded pages exist, and have been around for a long time even though they have obvious deviations from Wiki guidelines, and have promotional content. I would like to open this discussion to a wider forum to sort this matter out.

Please let the page be live until then.

regards, Nupur --NupurPathak (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nupur, please respond to the COI issues I have raised on your Talk page. I suggest you resolve those before doing anything else. If you are being paid to edit and you are violating the Terms of Use by not disclosing that fact and acting accordingly - and it appears to me that you are - you will be banned from Wikipedia. Paid editing is allowed in WP, but paid editors must follow the rules governing that activity, Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog,

I have no issues adding the COI footnote. Though this is not a paid article/edit, I am willing to adhere to those guidelines and make whatever declaration needed. However, as I told Doc James, I am very new to Wiki (this article was my first) and need time to figure out how to do the HTML bit.

--NupurPathak (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make the disclosures, then. Your User page would be the most appropriate place to make the initial one. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

[edit]

Two accounts adding the same spam link:

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

[edit]
Hello Doc James. I just wanted to say thanks for that great article you wrote here "I Wikipedia for sale". I agree it is a problem. Also, I first saw your name on here from the circumcision page, where I admit I got emotional and wanted to edit it without reliable sources, but you pointed out Wikipedia is not the place for that, after I sat and cooled down I realized you are correct! Popish Plot (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to paid editing we need to form a group of editors that pressure this online forums to enforce their terms of service (ie no allowing jobs that break other websites terms of use) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]

In case you are interested in assessing: Talk:Anterior interventricular branch of left coronary artery#Merger proposal. Brandmeistertalk 12:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ovarian cancer copyediting

[edit]

Hi Doc James! I see that you and I are crossing paths copyediting Ovarian cancer, and I just wanted to leave you a note about what I'm doing. Keilana asked me to give the article a thorough copyedit, but I am in no way a medical expert, so while I can polish the language, I may occasionally end up changing a phrasing that actually has medical meaning. If you'd rather I leave copyediting to you so you don't have to do cleanup duty, just let me know; otherwise please don't hesitate to check over my copyedits from a medical perspective so we can make sure both language and content are as good as possible. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I just try to keep the lead using really simply language. Not so concerned about language complexity in the body of the article. Thanks for the note :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The notion of Autism as a medical condition is controversial. This is contested by the Autism rights movement, which is a movement (headed by people in the Autistic spectrum) that fights for the perception/definition of Autism as a normal variation within human neurodiversity.

Your removal of content related to the Autism rights movement and Autistic culture on articles dealing with Autism prevents access to essential information on Autism.

The following content is content that you removed (which originated from the Autism rights movement article) and IMO is essential knowledge on articles involving Autism, Autism spectrum and Asperger Syndrome.

—ADeviloper (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all we must use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. The discussion is occur on the talk pages of the articles in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Autism rights movement

[edit]
Autism rainbow infinity
The rainbow-colored infinity symbol represents the diversity of the autism spectrum as well as the greater neurodiversity movement.

The autism rights movement (ARM) is a social movement within the neurodiversity movement that encourages autistic people, their caregivers and society to adopt a position of neurodiversity, accepting autism as a variation in functioning rather than a mental disorder to be cured.[1] The ARM advocates a variety of goals including a greater acceptance of autistic behaviors;[2] therapies that teach autistic individuals coping skills rather than therapies focused on imitating behaviors of neurotypical peers;[3] the creation of social networks and events that allow autistic people to socialize on their own terms;[4] and the recognition of the autistic community as a minority group.[5]

Autism rights or neurodiversity advocates believe that the autism spectrum is genetic and should be accepted as a natural expression of the human genome. This perspective is distinct from two other likewise distinct views: (1) the mainstream perspective that autism is caused by a genetic defect and should be addressed by targeting the autism gene(s) and (2) the perspective that autism is caused by environmental factors like vaccines and pollution and could be cured by addressing environmental causes.[1]

The movement is controversial. A common criticism leveled against autistic activists is that the majority of them are high-functioning or have Asperger syndrome and do not represent the views of all autistic people.[6]

Prominent figures

See also

[edit]

Pubmed articles

[edit]
Pubmed is a standard source for scientific articles in the medical community.
Articles on Autism in the context of neurodiversity:
This 2004 article, published in Nature, argues that Label of 'autism' could hold back gifted children:
Two more articles on the correlation of Autism and genius:
Articles arguing that intelligence is typically underestimated in individuals with Autism:
—ADeviloper (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

—ADeviloper (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Solomon A (2008-05-25). "The autism rights movement". New York. Archived from the original on 27 May 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-27. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Mission Statement. Autism Acceptance Project. Retrieved on 2008-11-24.
  3. ^ Mission Statement. Aspies for Freedom. Retrieved on 2008-11-24.
  4. ^ Autism Network International presents Autreat. (2008-05-23) AIN.
  5. ^ "Declaration From the Autism Community That They Are a Minority Group" (Press release). PRWeb, Press Release Newswire. 2004-11-18. Retrieved 2007-11-07.
  6. ^ "The autism rights movement". Synapse.org.au.

Cause of spider bites

[edit]

Not sure about the title of this article. It seems like it would be on 'why spiders bite certain people' or 'why people get bit by spiders' or something similar. As it is, I'm not entirely sure what what the article is about. Deunanknute (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While only certain spiders cause spider bites and this articles lists the ones that do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about something more along the lines of "Spiders that bite", or "List of biting spiders"? Those still aren't good titles, but they're more clear. Deunanknute (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure done. I like List of biting spiders Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually any spider that has large enough fangs can bite a human, however the vast majority are not significantly toxic to humans. A better title would be "Medically significant spider bites" - this phrase is quite common in Arachnology literature. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds much better. Deunanknute (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

[edit]

Recruitment for Wikipedian Interview

[edit]

Hello Doc James,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgrobison (talk • contribs) 20:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision

[edit]

I noticed you reverted my edit to Circumcision. However I think the phrase "Evidence supports that...", as it is in the article now, is grammatically incorrect because it doesn't say what the evidence is supporting. Given that you don't want it described as a "view", perhaps starting the sentence with "Evidence supports the use of male circumcision to reduce the risk..." ? Everymorning talk 00:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything wrong grammatically with "Evidence supports that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa"?
What the "Evidence supports" is that "male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only medical circumcision in some studies reduces the HIV risk there in South Africa. . Other circumcisions in the same area have caused hundreds of deaths and half a million hospitalizations in the last 5 years as well as an increase in HIV. Why is it Doc James that you refuse to countenance mention of this within the article ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 01:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to come forwards with decent references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...or grab a tissue and dry those tears once you're done crying. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you both are well aware I have already done so. The references not the tears that is. Do either of you have a POV or cultural conflict of interest that should be declared on this subject ?Your severe pruning of the Foreskin article article DocJames has been noted. @Seppi - I am unsure what purpose your sarcasm is supposed to serve but it is certainly not a WP one. Are you attempting to infer that the deaths of Africans are a matter for mockery rather than inclusion ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 03:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

[edit]

Hello Doc James, I cannot find on your User Page a section where you declare your Conflicts of interest according to WP:COI. Please can you add this information? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.148.198 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly what conflict needs declaring? You did not feel this was sufficient "Note: I am entirely a volunteer here. I do not accept money or honorariums for any efforts related to wikis, Wikipedia or the Internet. I do accept travel costs for speaking events by organizations that can afford them. I do not and have never accepted pharmaceutical funding. I do not have any financial COI with respect to the subjects I edit." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
who is giving you money to travel? Popish Plot (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have had my one trip to the NIH covered by the US government and have had one trip to UCSF covered by UCSF. Other trips to UCSF I have paid for myself. The last Cochrane conference I went to I paid for my own travel to India and accommodations. They did give me free entry to the conference. My trip to the World Health Organization I paid for myself. Most of the time I pay for my own travel and accommodations. I even sometimes pay for others accommodations. Wikipedia is a fairly expensive hobby. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably just because you're a doctor not cuz you edit wikipedia right? It seems this user IP 2.50 makes nonsense vandal edits so I got tricked into thinking there was an actual conflict of interest problem. Popish Plot (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Popish Plot You are pretty new here and you don't seem to understand our WP:COI guideline. Concerns about COI do not provide a foundation for endless, vague questioning. If you have any concrete concerns based on what WP:COI actually says, please ask about them, and if you are not satisfied with what you hear, you can create a case at WP:COIN. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you're right I'm new and got confused. Popish Plot (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its an important issue! I hope you learn about it and get involved in the effort to help us managed it. best regards Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breastfeeding and relactation

[edit]

Doc James,

Really? I thought we kind of had a working relationship. You may not have intended to jump levels by banning me for 24 hours, but it sure feels that way. One of the times you said I hadn't paraphrased sufficiently, I actually had. I had paraphrased a Bangladeshi guide to malnutrition, and you thought it was too similar to a WHO guide. It may have been. But when standard health advice is rendered in plain language, the results may often be quite similar.

And this time, I did make a mistake. I was pressed for time and working too quickly. At the very least I should have used quotation marks for the material from the WHO guide. Better yet, distill it down in pithy fashion.

And actually, you may not want to chase me off entirely. You and I seem to be among the few people primarily interested in the accuracy of health articles, and not just the formality of the writing itself.

PS And remember when I told you about a WHO guide recommending rehydrating a malnourished child relatively slowly, and that little bit enabled you to look up the very similar concept of refeeding syndrome? Cool Nerd (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must paraphrase User:Cool Nerd. This is not negotiable. It say every times you hit the edit button that "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Using quotes is often not sufficient to make content acceptable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do paraphrase. Please don't view an earlier philosophic disagreement on our part as disobedience or something similar on my part. Cool Nerd (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [6] which is the edit that got you blocked you added

A WHO publication citing a 1992 source includes the following recommendations on helping a client to relactate (partial list): • Make sure that she has enough to eat and drink. • Encourage her to rest more, and to try to relax when she breastfeeds. • Explain that she should keep her baby near her, give him plenty of skin-to-skin contact, and do as much as possible for him herself. Grandmothers can help if they take over other responsibilities - but they should not care for the baby at this time. Later they can do so again. • Explain that the most important thing is to let her baby suckle more, at least 10 times in 24 hours, more if he is willing: - she can offer her breast every two hours; - she should let him suckle whenever he seems interested; - she should let him suckle longer than before at each breast; - she should keep him with her and breastfeed at night; - sometimes it is easiest to get a baby to suckle when he is sleepy. • Show her how to give the other feeds from a cup, not from a bottle. She should not use a pacifier. • If her baby refuses to suckle on an `empty' breast, help her to find a way to give the baby milk while he is suckling. For example, with a dropper or a syringe. • For the first day or two, she should give the full amount of artificial feed for a baby of his weight or the same amount that he has been having before. As soon as her breastmilk begins to flow, she can start to reduce the daily total by 30-60 ml each day. • Check the baby's weight gain and urine output, to make sure that he is getting enough milk. - if he is not getting enough, do not reduce the artificial feed for a few days; - if necessary, increase the amount of artificial milk for a day or two. Some women can decrease the amount by more than 30-60 ml each day.

Again, this is only a partial list. This publication also states: "If a baby has been breastfeeding sometimes, the breastmilk supply increases in a few days. If a baby has stopped breastfeeding, it may take 1-2 weeks or more before much breastmilk comes."[1]"

Ref says


Make sure that she has enough to eat and drink. • Encourage her to rest more, and to try to relax when she breastfeeds. • Explain that she should keep her baby near her, give him plenty of skin-to-skin contact, and do as much as possible for him herself. Grandmothers can help if they take over other responsibilities - but they should not care for the baby at this time. Later they can do so again. • Explain that the most important thing is to let her baby suckle more, at least 10 times in 24 hours, more if he is willing: - she can offer her breast every two hours; - she should let him suckle whenever he seems interested; - she should let him suckle longer than before at each breast; - she should keep him with her and breastfeed at night; - sometimes it is easiest to get a baby to suckle when he is sleepy. • Discuss how to give other milk feeds, while she waits for her breastmilk to flow, and how to reduce the other milk as her milk increases. • Show her how to give the other feeds from a cup, not from a bottle. She should not use a pacifier. • If her baby refuses to suckle on an `empty' breast, help her to find a way to give the baby milk while he is suckling. For example, with a dropper or a syringe. • For the first day or two, she should give the full amount of artificial feed for a baby of his weight or the same amount that he has been having before. As soon as her breastmilk begins to flow, she can start to reduce the daily total by 30-60 ml each day. • Check the baby's weight gain and urine output, to make sure that he is getting enough milk. - if he is not getting enough, do not reduce the artificial feed for a few days; - if necessary, increase the amount of artificial milk for a day or two. Some women can decrease the amount by more than 30-60 ml each day. • If a baby has been breastfeeding sometimes, the breastmilk supply increases in a few days. If a baby has stopped breastfeeding, it may take 1-2 weeks or more before much breastmilk comes.

It is ALL word for word the same. This content is not under an open license and you cannot copy and paste it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, I freely acknowledge that I made a mistake. Now, I did trim the source ever so slightly. Not near enough, I acknowledge that. Looking back on how I made this mistake, I think I was focusing on other things. For example, I really wanted two sources and was focusing on whether I had done a good job summarizing the second, on why the bullet point formatting was not working out, etc. And then I had time pressures.
So, what I'm going to do, is to continue rolling forward. And somewhat go back to my previous methods of working at a slower pace.Cool Nerd (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ THE TREATMENT OF DIARRHOEA, A manual for physicians and other senior health workers, World Health Organization, 2005, page 41 (45 in PDF). Reference: Helping mothers to breastfeed by F. Savage King. Revised edition 1992. African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF), Box 30125, Nairobi, Kenya. Indian adaptation by R.K. Anand, ACASH, P.O. Box 2498, Bombay 400002)

Infobox disease

[edit]

Hi James, with regards to Infobox disease, how do you propose we move forward. From your edit summary I make out that you reject the closure of the TfD. DRV seems the venue best suited for that. What do you think? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To which discussion do you refer User:Martijn Hoekstra? It is very clear that there is no consensus to add these extra perameters [7]
There however may be support to move infobox disease to the name infobox medical condition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_22#Template:Infobox_medical_condition this TfD, of course. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure WP:DRV is reasonable. It however appears that discussion is ongoing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you !voted twice on the DRV. You may want to strike your earlier comment. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Writer's Barnstar
Keep up the great work on WP! J.B.M.D. 03:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The same to you :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

[edit]

Reply to your comment regarding a reference that I used

[edit]

Hi. I replied to the comment you left on my talk page. Could you please either reply to it, or undo the reversion of my edit. Thanks in advance. Best wishes --Rezarj (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great Editing

[edit]

Wonderful and deft editing on the Pelvic inflammatory disease article. Thank you.

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks plan to work on the lead of that article. Needs a bit of work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Indeffing for undisclosed paid editing

[edit]

just curious, have you ever indeffed someone for undisclosed paid editing? if no, why? thx! Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet. I am asking the WMF their position. And likely we need a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hm. hm. interesting. i appreciate that and respect your caution.
in my view, some among us have already started to treat the obligation to disclose paid editing like policy; i have seen one other admin indef for it that i can rememember and another upholdit (as I posted on the Arbcom request). I am curious how widespread that is. don't you admins all talk to one another on some secret batphone somewhere?  :) Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undisclosed paid editing is a big issue but the question is how to deal with it. Most paid editors simply use one account per job (this case is the acception). Some CUs decline to run cases were the evidence is not based on Wikipedia diffs. Additionally if the person in question has already moved on to their next account what good is blocking all their previous socks unless you are going to use them to follow up and delete what they have done. I see three other potential approaches:
  1. Higher standards for notability and deleting spam / advertising aggressively
  2. Requesting the sites were the business is taking place to close the accounts involved. They have agreed to do this but often the individuals in question just create new accounts. Likely will need to meet with the companies and put in place better measures. Feel free to start reporting at Elance, Odesk and Fiverr though. All three are accommodating.
  3. Work to get bad publicity for the companies involved. So for example Metronic and Premia Spine Limited have both aggressively tried to promote themselves via Wikipedia. The press I think consider this an interesting story. Also the FDA or the European Commission may be interested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. i agree, the throw-away account thing is a big problem. i wonder if there is some kind of SPA-bot that would help us find them; that would help us then try to see if there are connections among them... Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes an excellent idea. Run known paid editors month maybe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut allergy

[edit]

Doc James, you often gave me some very good advice regarding proper citation and medical articles. I recently added a section to the peanut allergy page on infants at some or high risk for allergy, and their ability to be de-sensitized from it. You are a good evaluator of medical information; could you please review my additions. Let me know if anything should be altered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiuytrewqvtaatv123321 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure will take alookDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiuytrewqvtaatv123321 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unhelpful section blanking" in Omega-3 Fatty Acid article

[edit]

Hello. I blanked one sentence (not an entire section) because the information was not in the source cited (I checked). I stated this in my edit summary. Am I wrong? Did you check the source to find the cited information? Please point it out to me if it is there. I'll leave the reversion of my edit in place until we finish our discussion. Thanks. 132.198.151.138 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your edit [8]. Here is the ref [9]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I see I am in error. I searched for the article by title at PubMed and got 2 results. I clicked on the first mistaking it for the article, which was the second (or the specificially boxed one above them). I see also that you could think I was being malicious, though I just had the wrong article. 132.198.151.138 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks no worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

[edit]
Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mike V • Talk 02:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"There is little evidence for treating most types of chronic pain with opioids."

[edit]

This is a pretty glaring over-simplfication that requires a lot more explanation. I'm not sure why this should be in the introductory section for a page about "Chronic pain" when really the statement is entirely to do with treatment of CP (or rather a criticism of current treatment for CP). The opinion is by no means widely accepted and at most would belong in a controversial/criticism section. Furthermore, for such a bold statement, something much more authoritative than an NIH workshop should be cited (particularly as you have already declared a minor conflict of interest with the NIH). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.170.229 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added another ref from the journal neurology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rabies vaccine

[edit]

OK, thank you. I thought it would be fine since our product name was mentioned in the adjoining paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonnieblue628 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see a number of people from your company are editing the article in question. Please going forwards because you have a WP:COI only post correction on the talk page. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist ?

[edit]

Doc, could you keep Education Program talk:University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill/PSYC500 - Developmental Psychopathology (Fall 2014) on your radar? The prof has made great and positive strides in the right direction, but I'm not sure where Wiki Ed staff is, and there are at least 35 students! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sanitation Project

[edit]

Hi,

I was sorting wonderful images of pit latrines and such on the Commons, and looking as the wiki pages, I became aware of you as a major force organising and implementing a sanitation project here. I'd like to join but I don't know how much I'm capably of contributing.

But I could be helpful to you on the commons. Right now we're into a big discussion on the best way to organising categories for sanitation-related images, including toilets, latrines, etc. many from African. Do you have any ideas about this? It involves many different cultures and parts of the world. We want everyone to find the categories useful.

This is vague but too tired to write more now. EChastain (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:EChastain that is wonderful. We would love to have you join these efforts :-)
User:EvM-Susana is the one that donated all the images. It is great to hear they are being organized.
We have put a fair bit of work into pit toilet and are working to translate the lead
We are trying to decide what lead to improve next. It is part of this project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_Task_Force Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to organise the relevant images but I need input from knowledgeable people who have a world-wide view, so that the images will be easily accessible to people of deferent languages and cultures. Plus I want to understand of some of the technical stuff. Also I don't know what's really relevance and what is slush, broadly speaking. But I'm very interested in the whole subject! And especially input. (I noticed that the article Latrines is a new translation from the French. It's basic article.) EChastain (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Pit toilet has been redirect to pit latrine. EChastain (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes User:EvM-Susana is the expert. She is an engineer who works in the field. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

[edit]

Edits on CRE

[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

You are not above the law. You have to use edit summaries. It is totally irrespectful how you treat others, outside your little court, as far as I can see. This is no personal attack, it is criticism of your bad behavior. Ignoring, arrogant attacks and irreverent editing--Wuerzele (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To what edit do you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

[edit]

User:Ctg4Rahat (from the Premia Spine Limited/paid editing)

[edit]

[10][11] though not medical, he seems to do the "same thing" in a number of articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually on the GetResponse article (2nd link) somebody else created the draft; he reviewed it and moved it to mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the point is hes active (via monetary motives) in whatever comes his way (perhaps, as you indicated on the second link, he isn't alone)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful to avoid making definitive statements about other editors, without very clear proof. Concerns about COI are not a license to witch hunt. Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no they aren't , your right...but lets not be blind...if there where some way to identify these people/article, a bot or something, that would be best--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COI editing is important, but so is WP:OUTING, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:HOUNDING. If you want to get involved in this (which would be great) you need to be disciplined and not sloppy, for your own sake and for the health of the project. Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
agreed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he has admitted to being a paid editor. Plus he has copied and pasted from sources. I am not happy with this situation. If someone is interested in checking his other work for copyright issues would appreciate it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article

[edit]

Fascinating article, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-25/Op-ed.

Thank you for your efforts as described there,

— Cirt (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duloxetine

[edit]

Hi Doc, Just to be clear, it was not my intent to be provocative in editing duloxetine. I was patrolling another editors changes an thought we should move the medical society opinions above that of Prescrire, which independent of how either of us views it, does not circulate as widely as the other sources.But if you feel strongly about it, change it back. Not my goal to start that fight back up again. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just adjusted a bit of other text. Left the ordering as you placed it Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

Hello, I have disclosed the articles which I have COI. I have COI with articles related to Premia spine. The TOPS which you already deleted and another is in draft namespace Draft:Facet joint arthrosis. Which I would like you to edit and make neutral and correct. As I am not medical professional the article may contain many factual errors. Thanks - Rahat (Message) 09:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Ctg4Rahat we are needing a list of all the articles you have written for pay. Not just this one. Can you please provide such a list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi James, I fixed some issues in the server side of the bot , so now User:EranBot/Copyright/rc should log suspected edits few minutes after it is saved. I also wrote a small user script that adds 2 buttons for easier tagging of edits as copyvio and non copyvio. Eran (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful thanks User:ערן Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maggot therapy

[edit]

Hi James,

Thanks for the reference feedback. I am a medical professional as well and I would like to share with your that peer reviewed medical journal articles are not always "reliable credible" sources. Here is a site that will help you to see the very ugly truth about this. http://retractionwatch.com/

I am a very strong medical maggot therapy advocate due to me requesting this therapy over traditional methods to help heal a post surgical wound that I was left with. I have learned that here in the US most people don't even know that they have this as an option. It is a very unpopular thing among many medical professionals due to arrogance and ignorance and not being as profitable as surgery. The maggot therapy that I received at Stanford Advanced Wound Care center this past month was very successful and a huge learning curve for both myself and the wound doctor. The treatment worked and amazed everyone on the team. My goal is to raise the awareness of these excellent wound debriders and stop all the misinformation out there.

I am all about quoting reliable sources and much of what I have posted on the Maggot Therapy page is just that. I will continue to work on that page as it dearly needs it. Not sure why someone is trying to put the anti-medical-maggot vibe out there by quoting one poorly carried out study in the UK. I am about to load a ton of credible studies form around the globe to put a stop to this misinformation.

Thanks again,

DeDe4Truth (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DeDe4Truth Yes well aware of issues with the published literature. The request is to use review articles which is different than peer reviewed. We use it sometimes here.
Also it is not about the number of sources but the quality of sources. We only use the top two here [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, I am not clear why you deleted my listings of MOA's for Medical Maggots and left the comment that we don't use popular press. I don't use popular press either. All of my page edits have verifiable sources and fall within the acceptable guidelines for Wiki edits. I don't want to battle you over this knowledge and information that I want to share to help stop the misinformation about medical maggot therapy. What specifically are you having issues with concerning my edits? DeDe4Truth (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the difference between a primary and a secondary source? This is a primary source [13] Please spend some time reading about the difference between the two and please use secondary sources only. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I know the difference and I am going to ask you to stop deleting my edits. I am following the wiki rules for posting and you are sabotaging my edits. All 4 MOA's for medical maggots is well documented and I have listed as you state in your how to edit wiki video that we need to reference peer reviewed published literature and that is exactly what I am doing. DeDe4Truth (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so if you know the difference than I guess you are using primary sources on purpose and removing secondary sources? That is not allowed and will likely get you blocked.
The video does not say "peer reviewed" literature though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you again. What specifically have I posted that is not correct? DeDe4Truth (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is original studies that have been published considered secondary sources? DeDe4Truth (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A original study is a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please define a review article? I have linked the term to make it easier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are not seeing eye to eye and you are making one claim in video and trying to force me to abide by your rules. You state in your video that we need to "reference peer reviewed published literature". Show me where I am not doing this. I want you to return my 4 MOA's known for medical maggots. I posted evidence based studies. Why are you deleting them? DeDe4Truth (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To make it easier? LOL for who? Show me where it states that I can only reference review articles.DeDe4Truth (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The video here at WP:MEDHOW says use review articles. This page WP:MEDRS says use review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to review this stop trying to police my edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring DeDe4Truth (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example your Disinfection edit on the medical maggot page is plagued with missing citations and yet you want to continue to post it. Where are your evidence based references? This should be removed.

Why did you remove my 4th MOA?

DeDe4Truth (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting my 4th MOA? I also used this as the reference. Help me to understand the issue with the 4th MOA and my reference? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771513/ DeDe4Truth (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You used a ton of primary source and bare urls.
This one here is okay [14]
You could add it. Please format it properly. But do not re add the rest of the primary sourcesDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source you used to support the 4th one "Biofilm" was this primary source [15] [16] Biofilm however is part of the infection thus a separate point not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to understand what is wrong with using a primary source when I reference?

Bilfilm was mentioned to help further educate people about this topic.

What do you mean when you say please format it properly?

Also can you please answer me on the Disinfection section where you list all sorts of information without referencing it. How can this be acceptable on Wiki? DeDe4Truth (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A) we do not typically allow primary sources. You are free to ask others.
B) I did not add the "disinfection section". You will notice it here in the aricle before I ever edited it [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you "typically allow primary sources"? I like to understand why vs. it is what it is. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Am I allowed to delete the Disinfection Section for lacking references?DeDe4Truth (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not expected to reference what we edit on Wiki then I suppose I can add a lot of medical maggot information and not have to reference any of it? Is this how it works? DeDe4Truth (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N ohne R

[edit]

Wrt the norepinephrine article, N ohne R is from this book page 63. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.197.201 (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.197.201 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please use more recent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user Ctg4 Rahat/

[edit]

he has come back apparently and removed the COI tags on several articles[18] (just letting you know)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog has taken care of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so to both of you, as far as I am concerned this matter is settled. user has said that all paid edits have been disclosed, and there is no more that I can see needs to be done, or that we can do. see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Premia_Spine_Limited_and_many_others Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Hello, thank you for your comments. I am new to wikipedia and appreciate your feedback. However, I must disagree with your removal of my statement from the Breast Cancer Screening page. The reference that I provided is from a peer reviewed journal. In fact, it is from the same year and issue as references 12, 13 and 14 in the wikipedia article. I believe these all qualify as verifiable. Please be so kind as to check the table that is referenced for the accurate numbers regarding mortality reduction as published by the authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Eby (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets discuss here [19]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion requested

[edit]

Doc James,

i was asked to help with the article Community-led total sanitation by EvM-Susana because she said a psychologist was needed to work on it. The whole article seems to come from one source, has no data regarding effectiveness and the method of changing the behaviour of "rural people" is through shame. I would like to hear your opinion on this article if it's even worth bothering with.

I've tried to edit a few others, but get reversed immediately.

I think I can only be useful by trying to organize the Commons sanitation issues, but there's no mode to follow here. And the Commons editors and uploaders aren't interested in the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance uploads. No one had done any work on them (over very little), except me.

I don't know if I can be useful to this project, although I'd like to find a way. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

I have given a list at the COI noticeboard and also disclosed at each of the paid articles talk page. - Rahat (Message) 20:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should also be on your user page. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of amended RfC

[edit]

There is an RfC related to paid editing on which you commented or !voted, which was just amended. See Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_Links_related_to_paid_editing Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of reliable sources

[edit]

Hi Doc James. Thanks for pointing out about the extraordinary requirements of the threshold for the WP:RS used in medical-related articles. As I'm new to the articles in the areas of medicines, but has been a Wikipedia editor for almost a decade now. Could you please point me out to the consensus to which it concluded that the only reliable sources must be indexed by PubMed? Thanks for your help on this. Z22 (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the minimum bar is typically 1) indexed in pubmed 2) a review article Mention in WP:MEDRS
Position statements by governments and nationally recognized health organizations are also okay
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about in conjunction with this article? Z22 (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a primary source. We want people to use review articles. You can search pubmed specifically for reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This should be the review article, right (? Z22 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solutions 2015

[edit]

Hi Doc. At first glance I though this account was another SEO spammer following Matthew Woodward's ill-considered advice, but having looked at their edits more closely, it seems that they are genuinely trying to fix dead links. The links they've been adding point to a variety of domains, which are unrelated as far as I can tell - whilst it could be a sophisticated SEO scam, I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and unblock to see what they do next. Would you have any objections? Yunshui 雲水 08:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will email you some details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

[edit]

DCIS

[edit]

Doc, can you cite the irresponsible statement about death stats at DCIS? Family member affected, and that sentence, if false, just creates unnecessary concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SandyGeorgia You mean the sentence that says mortality is only 2% at 10 years? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so much for reading up on cancer on a day when I've not had coffee :) :) Thanks, Doc ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rheumatoid Arthritis

[edit]

Hello! I just did a drive-by edit of the rheumatoid arthritis page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rheumatoid_arthritis&diff=650101776&oldid=649322863), because (1) the link to biological agents is to a very different type of 'biological agents' page, and (2) the reference with regards to best practice use of biological agents for RA treatment was to an article on guidelines for Syncope! I figure you originally inserted that reference in 2013 by mistake - so thought I would bring your attention to the change (I did a quick search on pubmed but couldn't see an obvious alternative for what was intended instead) so that you might fix it up. 130.102.158.21 (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure what happened. Added a supporting ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

OK, so Bosstopher closed the parallel RfC, which I am so grateful for. You had posted links there showing examples of paid articles that you identified through elance, and i think it would be helpful to your RfC if you posted them in the discussion of that RfC, when you get time, so that people can see them. ditto any other comment you wrote there, that you think might be useful. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dementia

[edit]

When the DSM-5 was introduced in the article in the context of dementia, the DSM-5 became relevant to the subject of dementia. Please stop removing my contribution to the article. If you really hate what Thomas Insel had to say then take it up with him, but please stop vandalizing the dementia page.

I recommend you try to get consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've noticed that you've been erasing my edits going back to February 5, and that each time you have a different reason. So which is it? You just don't like it. Consensus or not, you're being a big baby here. No matter what I do, you're obviously going to keep reverting that page until somebody with the power to do so stops you. Before this goes any further, just stop and think about what kind of petty and immature person that behavior describes. 24.236.138.19 (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal insults are not appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it appalling that you keep referring me to wikipedia policy while you keep blatantly abusing those policies yourself. My addition is completely relevant and properly sourced. You have absolutely no business by wikipedia policy to be removing it. You just don't like it. If the DSM-5 is going to be introduced in an article about dementia, then at least some context is necessary considering that dementia is in fact not a mental illness, even by the DSM-5's own admission in their reclassification of it as a neurocognitive disorder. But the DSM is the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. And while psychiatrists may be qualified to treat comorbid symptoms such as aggression, they are in fact not qualified to treat dementia, nor are they the field of science that specializes in science and research for it. So introducing the DSM-5 in the article really wasn't appropriate at all to begin with and if necessary the world health organizations International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems would be the authoritative source for reference to clinical diagnosis and I would have no objection to it replacing the DSM-5 on the dementia page. I still cant wrap my head around why you or anyone would think that the DSM-5 is relevant to this article at all. It is a clinicians tool for achieving medicaid and insurance company reimbursement. It is not used in research and psychiatry does not and has never even specialized in either researching or treating dementia. As it is, the article suffers WP:POV issues as long as it's there and at least needs to be more balanced, although I still think that removing or replacing it entirely is appropriate. Now until we can solve this dispute, please stop reverting my contributions to the article. Considering that they are sourced and certainly reasonable, your behavior in doing so is vandalism. 24.236.138.19 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatry is involved in the treatment of dementia out in the real work. All the best to you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada

[edit]

Would you mind clarifying when (if ever) you were president of Wikimedia Canada? This source from 2011 says you were the president at that time, but their website now says Alan Walker is president. I'd also like to know when you were on their board of directors. Thanks, Everymorning talk 14:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was one of the three founding members of Wikimedia Canada in Dec of 2010 and was its president until I stepped down in Mar 2013. Alan Walker took over from that point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit waring at antibiotic resistance again

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You need to be cool when you edit .

You introduce so many mistakes!

You even had to take two reverts back .

Most of all: You need to respect others outside your court, and discuss.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You edits broke part of the lead (the image)
And you are shortening refs down to the PMID which is against consensus.
Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wuerzele I happened to notice this here, I'm not involved in the content but I took a look at the edit history and Doc's edits are not "edit warring", he even reverted back to your version to try to work with it. Please refer to WP:MEDMOS for formatting standards, and also be aware that many articles on the the translation list, you shouldn't be trying to make changes repeatedly against standards or that will make the job of the translation team more difficult. Thanks. Zad68 06:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

[edit]

Dear Doc James, My name is Lamberto Re, I am a MD and I had my past activity as Pharmacologist and Toxicologist at the Ancona University Medical Faculty. My research field was neuropharmacology and I had experience with Mac Plank Institute in Gottingen. IN my web site www.lambertore.com you could see more detail. Please, I kindly ask you why you deleted my comment on Ozone Therapy where I cited two papers published on international Journals. You could agree or not, but, to my opinion, SCIENCE must be open also to what is new also if it doesn't fit in full the conventional medicine. I suppose that, in the respect to ethic and to global reasearch, it is not elegant a so strong closure to data reported in PUBMED. Sincerely, Lamberto Re, MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambertore (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We typically require secondary sources such as review articles as references
This text "Recent papers suggested different actions and indicated that other biochemical pathways could be involved when ozone is administered at low doses in humans.[1][2]"
Is supported by two primary sources. As mention on your talk page please read WP:MEDRS Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pecorelli A; et al. (2013). "Nrf2 activation is involved in ozonated human serum upregulation of HO-1 in endothelial cells". Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.: 30–40. PMID 23253326. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  2. ^ Re L; et al. (2014). "Is ozone pre-conditioning effect linked to Nrf2/EpRE activation pathway in vivo? A preliminary result". European Journal of Pharmacology: 158–162. PMID 25218903. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

cochlear implant : Page Protected

[edit]

Hello Doc James,

I would like to continue to contribute to add informations with references about history of cochlear implant, unfortunately since the vandalism of the page I can't do it. So, is it possible to remove the protection ? Thanks in advance for our answer, Regards Poulpii — Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poulpii I left a note on your Talk page about SPA/COI concerns, and you have not responded there. Would you please do so? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree some of your edits raise concern such as "He modified the frequency of stimulation, by means of continuous interleaved stimulation (CIS). Curiously however, subsequent descriptions, notably in Nature in 1991 and at a recent media event, although astonishing with respect to the electrophysiology of the cochlear nerve, have never been discussed up to 3 recent technical papers." [20]

We need the content to be much more encyclopedic in tone. Also we need people to use high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS and WP:RS rather than primary or unpublished ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hi James, I was wondering if the top medical contributors statistic is going to be an ongoing thing or if that was just an experiment last year. Is that still happening? Just wondering TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends if I can convince User:West.andrew.g to do it again :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair, I was just curious. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of side effects of aripiprazole

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of side effects of aripiprazole, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.kompetenznetz-schizophrenie.info/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=2&topic=14016&page=10.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link contains content from Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanitation Project

[edit]

I've removed myself from the project, as there seems to be ownership issues. Thanks anyway. Best wishes, EChastain (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_76&oldid=1125493872"