Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 96

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98→Archive 100

Proposed deletion of Extension:Graph/Demo/RawData:PopulationByCountryHistoric-csv

The article Extension:Graph/Demo/RawData:PopulationByCountryHistoric-csv has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I know the editor I suspect that this was not intended to be an article but instead some kind of download into a draft space. Anyway it is sheer gibberish in its present form.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): There is no need for formal tagging—just ask if the page is still needed.
@Doc James: Let me know if a module would help parsing data like that. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Tagging is 'asking if the page is still needed'. What are my options when coming across an article like this? I'm not an administrator, so someone else has to move the contents to an appropriate place and then delete the article. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
This is for a graphing tool being by made by User:Yurik. Not sure were roll out is at but it is not working on En WP yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
This 'graphing tool' is not an article. I am typically polite, congenial, respectful, assume good faith on the part of other editors, but the comments above indicate that my comments were ignored. I guess am irritated, sorry. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand your impatience with having the content removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Doc James, the tool should be working just fine on all wikis. It won't work now that the data has some extra stuff at the top (the Proposed deletion template), but graph extension should work with it otherwise. I do hope that we can enable tabular data soon enough for this unformatted text not to be needed any longer. --Yurik (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Yurik can we have a brief chat some time later this week to discuss the bits I am struggling with?
User:Barbara (WVS) would you be so kind as to remove the template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Someone seems to have misunderstood something in the above exchange. The prod is on a file in Article namespace, under the title "Extension:Graph/Demo/RawData:PopulationByCountryHistoric-csv". It is not in Extension namespace, and it does not belong in Article namespace. Can it be deleted, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah thanks. Or we could just move it. User:Yurik I am not seeing the "extension" namespace here?
Were are these files supposed to go? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
So it's the data for a {{Graph:Chart}} visualization, or something like that? I'm not sure, but I'd think either Wikidata or Template: would be better than Article: —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes hoping that Yurik can run through how to get this data visualization stuff to work. Not sure if it would pull from Wikidata but I assume the answer currently is no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This page is an article. Discussing data vizualization is irrelevant Please move the contents to where you want them to go and lets get this out of article space. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk)

Will give Yurik a few more days. Have moved to my user space. User:Doc_James/RawData:PopulationByCountryHistoric-csv Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Acne rosacea

Hello, thanks for your message. I edited the Acne Rosacea article while listening to a long programme on Radio 4 that was largely about the discovery that dermodex mites are a main cause of this condition and that Ivermectin (I first ecnountered this as a mite treatment for cattle) is probably the most effective treatment. I was surprised by this and went to WP and while the treatment was mentioned earlier on, the treatment section did not mention it. I found truckloads of references but don't have the expertise to either write it up in full or choose the most appropriate references. Would you be able to do this? It seems a shame that many people with the condition might miss out on a very simple and effective remedy (of course the downside is that their droppings will become toxic to insects for six weeks!) Stub Mandrel (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Stub Mandrel okay will see what I can find. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Stub Mandrel was already discussed in the treatment section which said "Medications for which high-quality evidence of good results exists include ivermectin" and was supported by a Cochrane review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Not free image

This image seems not free: [1] I removed it from [2]

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:BallenaBlanca yes agree and nominated for deletion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for cleaning up my edits Thetruehasharin (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
No worries Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Heading

Hi Doc. I saw your message - thanks. Is it the case that when adding content to pages that discuss medication, it is not advised to add original research findings? I noticed my contribution to the clozapine page was removed, despite a citation. No claims were made that weren't discussed in the manuscript. I assume review papers are the only acceptable reference for pages that discuss medication? What about pages that discuss basic science such as a specific gene? Thanks for your help. BenTheFactCheckerOfNY (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The content added to the lead of the clozapine article was:
"A study of clozapine exposure showed that subcortical white matter neuron density in the frontal lobe of macaque monkeys increased by ~50% in treated brains versus controls, pointing to a potential cause for the increased amount of white matter neurons in patients with schizophrenia.[1]"
A couple of issues with this (1) the article is a primary rather than secondary source (2) the article does not say "white matter neuron density in the frontal lobe of macaque monkeys increased by ~50%" but "the proportion of nuclei expressing the neuronal marker NeuN increased by approximately 50% in subcortical white matter"
It is unclear if that change is good or bad. And it is unclear if it happens in humans. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Halene, Tobias B.; Kozlenkov, Alexey; Jiang, Yan; Mitchell, Amanda C.; Javidfar, Behnam; Dincer, Aslihan; Park, Royce; Wiseman, Jennifer; Croxson, Paula L. (2016-02-01). "NeuN+ neuronal nuclei in non-human primate prefrontal cortex and subcortical white matter after clozapine exposure". Schizophrenia Research. 170 (2–3): 235–244. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2015.12.016. ISSN 1573-2509. PMC 4740223. PMID 26776227.

WHO 2012 maps

I've put a page under my commons talk page for questions I'd like to resolve. I'll put a table up of all the diseases shortly when I've removed an anomaly. Chris55 (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Perfect thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Alavida Health Inc. / Naltrexone

So the clinic uses Naltrexone as part of their treatment and considering that type of treatment is not widespread is it not appropriate to outline why and how they are using Naltrexone? Is it really better to simply state "they use Naltrexone" and then leave it to the readers to hopefully get the answer somewhere else? The sources on the effects of Naltrexone are relevant for the content, it is not like the Naltrexone that Alavida uses is a different type. The article is about the clinic and their treatment approach, taking away the scientific backing for why it is a legitimate approach and removing all the sources you have seem counter-productive.  MPJ-DK  23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

What you appear to be writing is a Wikipedia:Coatrack articles.
The content is not about the topic of the article (the clinic) but is a discussion of the use of naltrexone to treat alcoholism (most of the sources did not even mention the clinic). We already have an article on naltrexone and one on alcoholism and one on the Sinclair method. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The article is about the clinic and their treatments - without describing what they actually do and why they chose to go that way seems like a natural thing to do when the treatment type is not common, without it the article seems like it's incomplete to me. Btw. I saw the COI tag - totally up front that I was paid to create the article, I've already been paid so my comments are not out of obligation but because the logic of it does not make sense to me one bit. The narrow view I am presented with, that "the treatment is not about the clinic" boggles my mind, that is like saying the article about Proctor and Gamble should not give any specifics on their products? I just don't get it.  MPJ-DK  00:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes the Proctor and Gamble articles does not give in depth specific on their products.
Please read WP:MEDRS. Your sources were not sufficient to support medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Here we have a medical claim "It has been shown to be effective in helping individuals maintain abstinence and reduce heavy drinking in numerous meta-analytic studies." with no reference at all. Now let's look at what one Cochrane meta analysis says on the topic "while effects on return to any drinking, RR 0.96 (95 CI 0.92 to 1.00) missed statistical significance." So I agree that it reduces heavy drinking but it does not appear to change the risk of returning to drinking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

And here is Pfizer#Products. They simply state the product and its use and then move on. This prevents Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. We do not need people trying to argue on that page how great each of those meds are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So the good news is that I'm in no way inclined to edit war over any of this, not my style. If I can help bring the article in line with guidelines then I will do what I can.  MPJ-DK  00:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Perfect. If you are interested in working on the benefits and harms of using naltrexone well continuing to drink EToH the article for it is Sinclair method. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
If that is how you chose to take it that's no skin off my nose.  MPJ-DK  01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you know of any recent review articles of the Sinclair method itself?
While we have good evidence for daily use I am not seeing a good comparison via a meta analysis to as needed versus daily us. But I imagine they are the same as most people would be drinking daily.
Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Translations

Thank you, I found his name and already sent him an e-mail and is just waiting for a reply. I'm familiarizing myself with the beta version translation tool which seems to be extremely helpful. I'm Danish born and raised, but living in the US so I thought I could put my Danish skills to good use.  MPJ-DK  02:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Peffect. We have had a few volunteers do translations into Danish[3] :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Advice on potential unrevealed paid edeiting

I have a question for you since it looks like you've been dealing with unrevealed paid editing on quite a few occasions in the past. A couple of weeks ago I was approached by someone who offered to pay me if I helped clean up his page, which he claimed was vandalism. I told him I would look at it and see if I could help. He sent me a document with various edits he wanted me to make, verbatim basically. Looking through his request some appeared reasonable but there were some that were clearly self-serving and not neutral as they tried to downplay a prior conviction for fraud etc. I turned the gig down, not something I could actually do. So while I did the research I put the page on my watch list and neglected to take it off afterward. 2-3 days after turning the gig down I see edit being made, all very close or identical to the edits I was asked to make, including arguments on the talk page the guy asked me to make. I checked all over his profile etc. but saw no declaration of being paid or at least COI. My question is what should I do? I have no actual proof, just the document I was given. I have considered going on the editor's talk page to ask him about it, I cannot just sit quietly by. Any advice?  MPJ-DK  00:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Until the discussion at WP:HARASSMENT reaches some kind of consensus, I'd stay well away from naming any external accounts here (i.e. on Wikipedia anywhere, user pages or noticeboards included). However it is OK to post your concerns at WP:COIN and at least list the article that you think has issues, if not the WP usernames associated with the editing. The latter is a bit redundant, the COIN readers will figure it out. - Brianhe (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)Thanks User:MPJ-DK. One needs to be very careful about outing anyone. But yes explaining your concern on the editor's talk page sounds like a good place to start. You could also mention it on WP:COIN. If you have further private evidence it can be provided by email to an admin (happy to look if you wish). Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to be a template editor and ip-block exempt

click Special:UserRights/Uan3004 Uan3004 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

But User:Uan3004 you do not have any edits to Wikipedia[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Its ok to grant Uan3004 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
This all seems very familiar. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 15:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you clarify User:HighInBC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a vague memory of someone recently requesting 'crat rights in the form of a userrights link as a brand new account. Not sure where I saw it. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 15:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@HighInBC: Me and Boing thought likewise - it's been going on for a while, though I've still not found out which LTA it is. They did however tag themselves as a sock of Diamese... -- samtar talk or stalk 15:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I received a similar message from this editor and have blocked them. I hope they enjoy their new userright. Graham87 06:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding how-to wording

Considering recent discussions on the subject I went back to the article I wrote on chemical protective clothing and edited it to avoid "how-to" language. Does this look right? James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes looks much better :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Heedless/Needless Warning

Regarding this edit to my Talk page [5] my previous edit to the Abortion article was more than ten days earlier. What gives? Motsebboh (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You made a revert today. Just making sure we are all on the same page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Heading

Please stop doing this. We have been actively participating in fetal tissue research for the last 20 years, works of which has been published in many cell therapy articles. The original topic I have asked everyone to review it from every corner in the globe including some special researchers who have dedicated their lives for fetal tissue regeneration in stem cell therapies and have been working on this topic like mine. All have viewed and reviewed both fetal tissue implant and my topic on Fetal tissue research in regenerative medicine and there is a stark contrast in the content and has been using our content as a reference for research discussions at home and abroad. Please make an exception to something that we work with day in and day out and we are proud to say that because this is us.Stop linking the page fetal tissue implant with our original work done for decades. It is hampering the research students and they have been complaining about it. Please kindly look into this matter. And a kind information, most of the work that we do here is untouched even at the so-called centers of excellence if Wikipedia is so rigid and finds the topic fetal tissue implant similar to fetal tissue research in regenerative medicine I have to say that I am talking to a robot.

Bajechele (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

While good to see you talking. User:Bajechele
Much of what your group is adding is overly promotional
Some of the rest of it is off topic
And nearly all of it is not supported by high quality secondary sources.
A bunch of it presents animal or cell culture data like it is human data
Additionally some of it is also copyright infringement
So yes we appear to have a problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

menopause

@Doc James: the ref you use says generally experience in there late 30's or early 40's, in the perimenopause section where it says signs and effects of menopause transition can begin as early as, is referring to how young it is possible to go through it not the general age in which you go through it in that respect my ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16523651 applies better

also it should be noted that your ref is from 2007 and is also wrong [1] if you want I can provide more sources (Plmokg22345 (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC))

Thanks User:Plmokg22345. Have adjusted the wording further. A few case reports is not a very good source.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


@Doc James: the ref comes from a study from the ncbi so if that is not deemed credible I do not know what is also the ref your use says generally experience in there late 30's or early 40's is wrong http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2971729/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3285482/ Women's Health: A Core Curriculum has been written to integrally link with the Women's Health Collaborative Core Curriculum being implemented in medical schools across Australia and New Zealand [7] (Plmokg22345 (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC))

There are many types of studies included in pubmed and PMC. We are looking for review articles typically per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: one final thing menopause under 40 is premature and under 45 is considered early [2][3][4][5] I just want to make sure info is as correct as possible (Plmokg22345 (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC))

Were does this ref talk about menopausal transition? [8]
Have replaced the estimate with a newer book.
Agree that before 40 is premature menopause but that is different than "early menopause transition" which is simply a change in menstrual frequency.[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: it says on average menopause occurs at 50 years of age (range 48-55)[6] also you say no pmc but you do know that ref 2 on the menopause page links a pmc from the ncbi for its own point of ref of menopause age range 45-55 [7] which by the way if you read the pmc it dose not say anywhere that menopause, usually between ages 45 and 55 (Plmokg22345 (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC))

@Doc James: it list average age range menopause at 48-55 on [8][9][10][11] I think on the menopause page where it says Menopause typically occurs between 45 and 55 years of age should be changed to Menopause typically occurs between 48 and 55 years of age (Plmokg22345 (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC))

Here is says 45 to 55 [10] which I think is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: and like I said the point of ref it uses is pmcs and PubMed from ncbi if you go under condition information it list pmcs and PubMed as its point of ref the article is just listing stuff from pmc's and PubMed from ncbi and some of the stuff it list as refs they do not even mention some of the stuff in the ref, on the condition information page it says Women who smoke may go through menopause earlier than women who don't smoke and on the ref it uses[12] it says regressions for the odds of earlier age at menopause, stratified on race/ethnicity in women 25 to 50 years of age but dose not say that in is own article and on that page where it says All women experience menopause, usually between ages 45 and 55 the ref it uses https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000894.htm list 45-55 but if you read the refs on the https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000894.htm page they are pmc's and PubMed too and it dose not at all say menopause is from 45-55 and like the menopause overview article it is just listing stuff from other refs mainly from pmc and PubMed from ncbi also under alterative names it says Perimenopause; Postmenopause which means that when it says 45-55 it is linking both together and on another [13] it says Perimenopause 45-49 and most other sources I found which I listed says menopause range 48-55 also you said There are many types of studies included in pubmed and PMC. We are looking for review articles typically per WP:MEDRS so by that logic since that article uses pmcs and PubMed as its own point of ref you should not use it, regardless the top menopause page I think should be change to something like perimenopause typically occurs between 45 and 49 and actual menopause between 48-55 (Plmokg22345 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC))

Which refs support "perimenopause typically occurs between 45 and 49 and actual menopause between 48-55"? This ref mentions 45 to 49[11] and I guess this one says 48 to 55.[12]
It is not uncommon for different refs to give different ranges like this. The NIH ref is also perfectly fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a good ref. Says perimenopause "The average age at onset of menstrual irregularity is 47.5 years"
"Early perimenopause is characterized by variable cycle length (> 7 days different from the normal cycle), and late perimenopause is characterized by >2 missed cycles or > 60 days of amenorrhea."
"Perimenopausal symptoms may occur up to 8 years before the final menstrual period"
[13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: sigh the sentence on the menopause page where it says Menopause typically occurs between 45 and 55 years of age makes it sound like most common age to go trough menopause is either between 45-55 which is wrong the most common range to go through menopause is between 48-55 the most common age to start perimenopause is either 45-49 and normally occurs for 2-8 years before menopause [14] also if you read what I typed the https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000894.htm page list 45-55 but if you read the refs on the https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000894.htm page they are pmc's and PubMed too and it dose not at all say menopause is from 45-55 and like the menopause overview article it is just listing stuff from other refs mainly from pmc and PubMed from ncbi also you said There are many types of studies included in pubmed and PMC. We are looking for review articles typically per WP:MEDRS so by that logic since that article uses pmcs and PubMed as its own point of ref you should not use it also under alterative names it says Perimenopause; Postmenopause which means that when it says 45-55 it is linking both together and on another refs [15][16] it says perimenopause(45-49),perimenopause is the period of a woman's life shortly before the occurrence of the menopause and can last from 2-8 years [17](Plmokg22345 (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC))

Most women go through menopause between 49 and 52 years. "Worldwide, most women enter menopause between the ages of 49 and 52 years"[14]
Even more go through menopause between 45 and 55. More than go through menopause between 48-55.
This [15] is a perfectly reasonable reference. I do not see a need to split hairs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: you just said yourself most women enter menopause between the ages of 49 and 52 years Worldwide, most women enter menopause between the ages of 49 and 52 most go through in late 40's-50's not mid 40's-50's 45-49 is perimenopause years [18] where it says The perimenopausal years refer to the time period when women’s menstrual cycles become irregular, generally between 45–49 years.[19] where it says the perimenopausal years (age 45–49 years),https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/menopause/Pages/default.aspx point of ref for it being 45-55 if you click on condition information is https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000894.htm page and under alterative names it says Perimenopause; Postmenopause so when it list 45-55 it is referring to both perimenopause and post menopause together the top should say most go through it between late 40's-50's perimenopause and actual menopause are two different things (Plmokg22345 (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC))

Lots of refs say 45 to 55[16][17]
Average is 50.7. Depends if you want to use one standard deviation or two and depends if you round the numbers a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: and more list 48-55 [20] [21][22][23] [24] [25] anyway I see you changed it (Plmokg22345 (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC))

They are all right [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: the ones I have listed are right too Obstetrics and Gynecology Recall[26] more say 48-55 then 45-55 and when they list 45-55 they are normally referring to perimenopause and actual menopause together (Plmokg22345 (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC))

References

  1. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2971729/
  2. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815011/
  3. ^ http://www.uicivf.org/uploads/POF_Patient_Handout_2011.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3634232/
  5. ^ http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/11/2731.full.pdf
  6. ^ https://books.google.ca/books?id=LN_cu0A0uSAC&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false
  7. ^ https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/menopause/conditioninfo/Pages/default.aspx
  8. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=D8vv_LtwWzoC&pg=PA126&dq=menopause+average++range+48-55&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFh5eu-YvOAhXIyj4KHbkAD6MQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=menopause%20average%20%20range%2048-55&f=false
  9. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=IuWkRYmhDNQC&q=menopause+average++range+48-55&dq=menopause+average++range+48-55&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFh5eu-YvOAhXIyj4KHbkAD6MQ6AEITTAG
  10. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=pVdKvVgEdwcC&pg=PA181&dq=most+go+through+menopause+48-55&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcrZud_YvOAhVDOD4KHbdLDpoQ6AEIPTAB#v=onepage&q=most%20go%20through%20menopause%2048-55&f=false
  11. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=SozvHsW4VysC&pg=PA435&dq=gynecology+menopause+range+48-55&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_gM2egYzOAhULPT4KHWQ5A28Q6AEINjAA#v=onepage&q=gynecology%20menopause%20range%2048-55&f=false
  12. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18626414
  13. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2971729/
  14. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=hWBIAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA378&dq=perimenopause++last+2-8+years&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd6uuJ6Y3OAhUJ9x4KHdV1CzIQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=perimenopause%20%20last%202-8%20years&f=false
  15. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2971729/
  16. ^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09321.x/pdf
  17. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=hWBIAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA378&dq=perimenopause++last+2-8+years&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd6uuJ6Y3OAhUJ9x4KHdV1CzIQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=perimenopause%20%20last%202-8%20years&f=false
  18. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2971729/
  19. ^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09321.x/pdf
  20. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=D8vv_LtwWzoC&pg=PA126&dq=menopause+average++range+48-55&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFh5eu-YvOAhXIyj4KHbkAD6MQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=menopause%20average%20%20range%2048-55&f=false
  21. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=IuWkRYmhDNQC&q=menopause+average++range+48-55&dq=menopause+average++range+48-55&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFh5eu-YvOAhXIyj4KHbkAD6MQ6AEITTAG
  22. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=pVdKvVgEdwcC&pg=PA181&dq=most+go+through+menopause+48-55&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcrZud_YvOAhVDOD4KHbdLDpoQ6AEIPTAB#v=onepage&q=most%20go%20through%20menopause%2048-55&f=false
  23. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=SozvHsW4VysC&pg=PA435&dq=gynecology+menopause+range+48-55&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_gM2egYzOAhULPT4KHWQ5A28Q6AEINjAA#v=onepage&q=gynecology%20menopause%20range%2048-55&f=false
  24. ^ http://erepository.cu.edu.eg/index.php/EJN/article/view/4323
  25. ^ http://www.emedicinehealth.com/menopause/article_em.htm
  26. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=SozvHsW4VysC&pg=PA435&dq=gynecology+menopause+range+48-55&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_gM2egYzOAhULPT4KHWQ5A28Q6AEINjAA#v=onepage&q=gynecology%20menopause%20range%2048-55&f=false

Signpost

The Signpost Barnstar
For writing an excellent article for The Signpost ("Two policies in conflict?"). I really enjoyed reading. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks User:Vanjagenije :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there any news about what is happening with Jytdog? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Nothing at this point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I left COI my personal opinion[19]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of {{Persondata}}

Hi Doc James,

I'm the bot who is deleting {{Persondata}}. I noticed your edit on Mark Pepys in which you added {{Persondata}}. This template is deprecated and deleted. Please stop adding {{Persondata}}. In case you want to support the Persondata project you can help with the migration of the dataset to Wikidata at KasparBot's tool. See Wikipedia:Persondata or contact my operator T.seppelt (talk · contribs) in case you have questions.

Thank you very much, -- KasparBot (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries. The issue was one of copyright infringement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Ruxolitinib (name brand Jakafi) as cause of PML

Thank you for your note on the need for credentialed sources in editing the Wiki page on progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Does Wikipedia ever reach out to researcher physicians who could corroborate the need for an edit? Ruxolitinib (brand name Jakafi) should be added to the list of immuno-suppressive therapies that can allow JC virus reactivation and result in PML. Jakafi was developed at MD Anderson Cancer Hospital (MDA) in Houston, Texas, and the FDA approved it for treatment of myeloproliferative disorders and polycythemia vera in 2011. The PML patient known to me, a 73-year-old female, was a participant in MDA's initial ruxolitinib trial starting in 2008. The MDA physicians treating her for PML in May-June, 2016, stated their belief that Jakafi caused her PML. PML is often fatal, and can leave survivors with severe cognitive impairment. At present, Incyte Corporation's marketing website for Jakafi merely states, "Jakafi can also cause other serious side effects, such as infection." This is wholly inadequate disclosure in my view. While MDA's physicians are highly ethical professionals, MDA has a potential conflict of interest here; there may not be much hurry to report their finding that Jakafi's serious side effects include the risk of PML. I can provide to you the names and email addresses of several MDA physicians who treated the patient (by private email). My objective is to have Wikipedia mention, and the Incyte marketing website for Jakafi disclose, the risk of PML. In addition, standard protocol for a patient starting Jakafi should be a baseline MRI of the brain and periodic monitoring during treatment. Kdparsons (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If the FDA concerns the concern than we would have a good ref. We only use published sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Hi, you left me a note about references. Can I ask why or what prompted it, and which sources you don't consider to be high-quality reliable sources? In the most recent edits I made I didn't add that many sources, I also improved the formatting of a lot of the existing references so maybe it's one of them that you seem to have the problem with? Therealmorris (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The request was to use secondary sources like review articles rather than primary research studies like single RCTs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be a more useful request if you stated which specific references you are referring to? Surely single RCTs are still preferable to completely unsourced claims? Not all references can be review articles. I will however continue to endeavour to use reviews, where they exist and are relevant. Therealmorris (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I manage to write articles using just review articles and other high quality secondary sources. If the only thing that supports something is a single RCT often we remove it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Which references that I added prompted you to make this request though? The first paragraph here was completely unreferenced before. I feel the primary sources I had included (which I guess are the ones you had issue with) are still better than the previous situation, however I have added two reviews to that paragraph, hopefully that is more to your approval. Therealmorris (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_96&oldid=1076861673"