Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

stop being a . . . .

When I first made the edits re. migraine, I asked for help with referencing. According to the link you sent me -- see the section on Books -- my sources are perfectly valid. I added page numbers. Thanks for the tip, it was helpful. Deleting questionable info for legitimate reasons is helpful. Gaming the system to justify deleting objective facts that come from valid sources just because it's information the Great James Heilman isn't familiar with is perhaps less constructive. In other words, you're being a real censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.213.205 (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The popular press is not a suitable reference. Have stated this a few times. Feel free to ask for a second opinion here WT:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I have tried to shed some light on this situation on the migraine talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.213.205 (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi let's not flame folk like Jmh649; he's giving up precious time to help the overall value of Wiki, and he's only applying what are clear and open rules. You may be wellmeaning and sensible, but many others would try to put stuff up here might not be. Give him some help, he's doing a good and highly valuable work here. (JCJC777 (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC))

Agreed. I call a toast. Biosthmors (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Read your edits

With this edit, you left the sentence "The drug is, and is taken orally in capsules or as a suspension." Please check your edits for grammar before you save them and move on. » Swpbτ • ¢ 15:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Heading

Hello..You are editing my addition while I am working on it. I was working ion my references when you removed my entire entry. It would be nice if you waited for me to complete my work before correcting it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicinechief (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please advise what you mean by improper formatting of my addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicinechief (talk • contribs) 01:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edits have been moved to your talk page. Please work on them their and get consensus before re adding. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Urinary tract infection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diaphragm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Formatting issues with Pain Mechanism addition

Hello Doc James,

Please advise me ion the formatting issues with my addition. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicinechief (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Pain mechanism

Hello Doc James,

I have made the changes. Please revies. Thanks.

Medicinechief (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Typo

I meant: Please Review

Medicinechief (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Addition to Pain Mechanism

Hello Doc James,

I will be glad to provide updated references as you requested. Please explain the difference between primary and secondary references. Thanks.

Medicinechief (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure secondary source are review articles or major textbooks typically while primary research are the actual studies in question. This is a great resource for finding them [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi James and Medicinechief. This new theory may not have been subjected to scholarly review in a peer-reviewed journal yet - I couldn't see evidence of it on my first look.

Medicinechief, Wikipedia medical content is very strictly constrained by policies and guidelines. My first impression of your contribution is that it doesn't presently conform to our medical sourcing guideline. I'll read it again tomorrow and discuss it with you on your talk page if you like. I've been editing medical articles here for four years and have a fair grasp of the relevant policies and guidelines. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Done --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Thanks for advice on editing

I will read WP:GA and other follow suggestions by you and other editors. I am editing in an area of great controversy, involving the drug suppliers of psychiatric drug addicts possibly being in error in making liftime diagnoses based on questioable methodologies. No matter the prevalence as a percentage of the population, their total numbers are huge, and emotions are very high when questioning the deepest concerns of an individual, those of their own minds. ParkSehJik (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a very controversial area of medicine. Best to use more neutral language than stuff like "drug suppliers of psychiatric drug addicts".Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Merging the articles Applied behavior analysis and Behavior modification

Hi,
I wanted input back on merging the articles ABA and Behavior mod., as the former is a new term for the latter.
See here: Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#Merging_the_articles_Applied_behavior_analysis_and_Behavior_modification.
Thanks!
ATC . Talk 04:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

removal of brand name due to copy right

dear friend

i have remove the brand name of neogab due to copy right protection.

i hope that you will understand and will not revert the change which i made.

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.243.146 (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you refer to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

December 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

UCSF

I posted at User talk:Michaelturken and I might try to just support from online, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Better refs

Hi James thanks, am pressed now but will try to do so. Am aware I am prehistoric in terms of sophistication. Will look up that tool. Thanks (JCJC777 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

We have instructions here Wikipedia:MEDHOW It is supper easy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Dear Friend,

I am from Pakistan and here as per the LAW pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to use thier brands name in any such communication which are directed to or may be used by general public.

in Pakistan Disease Awarness Advertising or promotion is allowed only.

i am hope full that you understand and not change the changes which i made.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedahmedkaleem (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We are not a pharmaceutical company here and thus this law does not apply. Even if it did apply the content is not hosted in Parkistan but in the USA. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Legislative effects on drug advertising could be an interesting area for discussion, though. Each jurisdiction has distinct laws on advertising of drugs, to which manufacturers adapt their campaigns. Sometimes the methods adopted are quite comical. You'll be aware of the Canadian environment, where a company runs "disease awareness advertising" on television for a new syndrome without explicitly identifying a product, back to back with visually and musically similar ads (even using the same actors) for the product without explicitly identifying the syndrome. No direct statement ever associates the two, yet every viewer knows that they are promoting that product for that syndrome. Recent prominent examples include Viagra, Cialis, Aleve, Nexium, and on and on. There are some reviews on the subject, such as PMID 19623259 and PMID 21597519. There are ongoing regulator policy studies. It could make for an interesting cross-disciplinary article, touching on law, psychology, media studies, drug safety, and business aspects. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree however the issue is that we have people who are attempting to remove medication related content from Wikipedia claiming that we are pharmaceutical advertising and thus illegal in their jurisdiction. This response is not the first I have dealt with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the user's !contribs. My comment was intended as an aside, not addressed to the merit of the deletions. On the question now, though, listing any (subset of a long list of) non-notable proprietary names against an INN is a precarious enterprise, often somewhat wp:SYNTH or wp:UNDUEish at best and downright dangerous at worst due to the potential for confusion between different products with similar/overlapping proprietary names. It's generally best to choose the subset on the basis of an established principle such as "show the first proprietary name under which the product was and still is sold, and name the relevant country" or similar. None of that is particular to one jurisdiction, though. I'd argue that it's a bad idea everywhere, not just in Pakistan. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes IMO we should only list the first couple brand names of the product in the lead. Other brandnames if they are listed at all should only be done so lower in the article in the section on society and culture. Many meds have hundreds of brand names. Sometimes the same brandname is used in different countries for different medications and people have died due to this. We as a society should really get ride of brand names all together but I do not think that is up to me. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I just rediscovered the rather dormant wp:PHARMMOS proposal. Seems I've been preaching to the bishop. Sorry 'bout that. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Would be great to have more people trying to move forwards consistency within PHARMA articles. I worked on it for a bit and am still meaning to get back to things :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey James, on the issue of attempts to remove Rx drug names from content: I am happy to report that the response we received in the hu-wiki legal forum where Viktor recently initiated a discussion on this particular issue was basically that those who warn of potential violation of the laws on advertising and/or media apparently misunderstand the relevant provisions, and that such restrictive provisions (at least under Hungarian jurisdiction) are meant to protect the consumers from unsolicited advertisements (by pharma) and are in no way to be construed as a means to limit either the provision of or access to free information sought by the consumers themselves. I, too, believe that no laws were broken; nevertheless, I'm in full agreement with LeadSongDog's suggestions above. Ildiko Santana (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am confident that we are in the legal right and that people are over interpreting the law. I have heard these concerns expressed in a number of languages and have been asked by a pharmaceutical company if we could not add content to Wikipedia. The answer was of course that they have no editorial control here :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Talk:Circumcision#Just_state_the_results.
Message added 21:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zad68 21:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Fever - ref needed

Hi, you left a message on my talk page. I copy-edited a line in Fever that was added by an IP user with a misspelled condition name. You probably want to look at reverting those edits too, since the condition name previously mentioned seemed non-existent after various searches. In the mean time I'll start looking for some references beyond Wikipedia. Thanks for the good work :) Marjoleinkl (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

WP:MEDRS Referencing Requirements

To be honest, this is the first time I have ever edited an article on wikipedia. This article was on burns. I believe you wanted to discuss referencing requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.220.100 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes the change you made did not have a reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Koro

Hi - I saw you changed the headings around. The reason it looked like that was because the vast majority of the literature talks about Koro solely related to men (really, just the penis). But there is a little bit of discussion on women, though it is rare (and some is in the article). So, I added a differential diagnosis section, but there was basically no literature on women that I could find. Everything was about men & urological issues. So, I added the heading "differential diagnosis and assessment males" (Assessment is the term used in the journal I cited). The "Exam" section (taken from another set of articles) is for men (only - and it was written to follow from the differential diagnosis section) to make this less confusing (since a sentence in the prior section was talking about breasts disappearing). So, it's a little strange to read a sentence about breasts disappearing & then seeing a detailed exam described. The exam for women is unknown - I couldn't find it published anywhere. Also, now after your edits, the section ends with the sentence "An examination, discussed in the following section, describes further details related to the diagnosis of Koro." So, that doesn't make sense now. Is there a reason you want it this way other than consistency? This disorder is not very consistent with others, and I just think new headings are more confusing than what was there. I was fine w/ someone changing the headings for clarity (and I put a note on the talk page about this) but I don't know if you read the note.Angelatomato (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: I think I can clarify the gender within the order you put the headings...but there is no differential diagnosis / exam in women that was in the literature...only men.

PMIDs & Sources: Hi - yes, I can add those. If my entire contribution has not been deleted in the next week or so, I will put in the PMIDs. I don't expect anything I wrote to last that long. Certain editors are adamantly against any contribution make on this article. They seem to want whatever I do to be erased. So, I will add the PMIDs only if I know they won't disappear. I am going to bet...after your last comment, they will start using the "secondary source" issue as a reason to erase everything I wrote. I don't think this article had any secondary sources previously...and I added one Uro text & the DSM, which is the most biblical of secondary sources in the entire field (and more controversial than most primary sources, ironically). Koro is a very culturally specific disease, so finding secondary source discussion in the USA (in american books) is difficult. I have a number of psych and human sexuality books on hand - few mention koro (or Genital Retraction Syndrome) in any way that is relevant. The policy about primary sources seems geared to avoid issues where people state empirical results from one single study & sway wikipedia in a direction (e.g., the autism article). Since I just focused on content that was in the intro / lit review sections, I don't think this should be an issue. I wasn't advancing a position. I was taking what was already summarized (in lit review sections & in non-experimental articles) and adding that here. Anyway, if you do find a secondary source, let me know...I would be curious what it says.

Secondary Source: The Journal of Sexual Medicine is considered secondary? Isn't it empirical / primary? The BJU article I cited had no experimental data & was only a review article...so is that secondary or primary? Is it based on the journal or the article? I do not work with medical journals often, but psych is roughly divided into review, theory, and empirical... so I can see why empirical journals (clearly primary) would not be allowed here but reviews / theory journals (seocndary) would be. Texts are naturally secondary. As far as the Journal of Sexual Medicine or BJU are concerned - I guess I am confused about primary vs. secondary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful work

I noticed the entries you made to the article on multiple sclerosis, which helped to bring that article, and thus the information it imparts, easy for the average person able to understand, and thus be educated. It's been years since I kept my license as an EMT- advanced life support and CPR and viewing FA-ranked articles like the one on MS a reminder of what is really important. Thank you! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC) OOPS- if you do wish to respond, my talk page is preferred. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad it helped. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Real Life Barnstar
Thank you so much for coordinating WikiProject Medicine! Your encouragement to Spoken Wikipedia is amazing! Keep Supporting, Keep Inspiring! AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Elective at UCSF Update 12.12.12

James, thanks for checking in about the elective. I have reserved a large open work space (with large group tables) that whole week from 11-3PM each day for us to have "drop-in" hours for editing sessions. I am still looking for the best place for you to give your overview talk.

Since you'll be coming early in the next semester, students will just have gotten back from Winter holiday. We'll publicize the event digitally starting a couple weeks before with invitations to RSVP for one of the editing sessions and to "adopt" an article. The week before I'll be putting up posters around the campus with provoking statistics about Wikipedia and further invites to come to the sessions.

As to which articles we'll be asking folks to adopt, I'm making a list of "Top" importance articles of "B", "C", and "Start" quality from here. Since I've started editing the sepsis article, I've noticed that it took me quite a while to have enough references at hand to feel comfortable starting to edit. You're having posted some more recent articles on sepsis felt like you were giving me an onramp, so to speak.

Do you think it would be feasible to come up with suggested edits ahead of time for each of the articles we choose, along with the appropriate reference, just so that we can give folks the experience of making an edit to the article they adopt? While it could be a lot of work for us, if someone actually makes an edit and signs their name to it, they're much more likely to feel like they've made a commitment and follow-through with future edits What do you think? Michaelturken (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree and sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'll add that the worse the article is, the less likely that anyone will complain about slightly imperfect edits. If there are stubs that need to be expanded, that might be very satisfying for all concerned. For example, someone recently did major work on Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, but it still doesn't have information about symptoms or diagnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Batch uploading/UMich

I saw your listing at commons:Commons:Batch uploading/UMich. I could do the upload (I've done several similar uploads with commons:User:Smallbot). However, the images all appear to have a a UMich logo. Could you contact them requesting the a logo-free version of the files?Smallman12q (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've also left a note at commons:User_talk:Michael_Barera#Commons:Batch_uploading.2FUMich.Smallman12q (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Wondering if you could look into this one aswell http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/ECGPedia Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There are several other medical collections:

Let me know what you whether you still want the UMich images with the UMich logo, and if there's any progress with ECGPedia. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll write the code for the for the ECGPedia upload this weekend. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful. Many thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I've filed commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot_8 so further discussion should be held there. The 3 lists of files to be uploaded is at commons:User:Smallbot/source/Cardionetworks. I've removed all the images with the term puzzle for ecgpedia. Someone with OTRS access needs to verify the ticket, and a custom license template should also be made.Smallman12q (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks great. If we can get this done before X-mas I can start adding the images to the appropriate place in Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten. I'll get them up by Christmas...sometime this week. Been busy with Commons:Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum and rl.Smallman12q (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ref

With regards to your query, I have merely rephrasing it on the other Wikipedia articles and does not contain any speculation / original research etc.

The part of the edit Which you objected to was incomplete at the time you observed it. That was my fault and inexperience with wikipedia. The content of the urinary incontinence section, while perfectly accurate is not presented in a way which will assit the reader to understand the diagnosis and common management options for this problem. believe it or not, urologists do not commonly manage urinary incontinence in women. As a urogynaecologist, I have published extensively on the subject and established a website www.womensbladderhealth.com which covers the topic for women very well.Farrsa (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation in regards to Cystic Fibrosis page edit

I edited my citations and filled in my changes again. I hope that this citation is good enough if it is not then I will need details as to what is incorrect about them. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryTimP (talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A2 milk

Seems to be significant wp:fringe. Would a wp:RSMED requirement on the claims be in order? Also, perhaps a wp:coi on an editor? Unfortunately, I don't have access to those journals. Thanks for minding the fort! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Report to 3RR maybe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The A2 milk spammer is back, I just undid maybe 2 or 3 dozen of his promotional edits. He keeps making the same changes and simply removes the warnings posted to his Talk page without discussion. Isn't this a time for the use of your admin powers to protect the articles? Zad68 14:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Some may claim that I am involved. Probably best to post at "request for page protection", or ask for him to be blocked for editing warring at 3RR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Srisharmaa_reported_by_User:Jim1138_.28Result:_.29 Jim1138 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive3#Goals.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Pine✉ 19:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional References for Pain Theory

Hello Dr James..I have added more recent references from the Trip Database as per your recommendation. Please review and approve the addition of this theory to the Wikepedia pages of Pain Theories.Medicinechief (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree completely re the external links. If you look at the other pages that discuss medical issues, there are several links to avoid having to have people click on one link just to be led to others. "cheers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarijkeVD (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

DMOZ is prefered. Feel free to ask for further input at WT:MED. We specifically do not link search results or forums. Please see WP:ELNO for more details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Omega 3. Secondary sources

Hello this message is with regard to an edit I made to the page Omega 3. You reverted this edit requesting secondary sources. I have provided the secondary source you requested below. The publisher of the secondary source is – natural standard (http://www.naturalstandard.com/) from what I can gather it seems to be a credible source but I will check to make sure.

First cite I used - http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=176224

Secondary source you requested - http://www.naturalstandard.com/news/news200306001.asp

The above cite discusses the findings of the original cite I used (Marangell et al)

If the secondary source I have provided is not adequate I would be more than happy to provide others.--CR.ROWAN (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Those are not secondary sources they are primary sources. Please read our article on this topic. TRIPdatabase is useful for finding appropriate references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is http://www.naturalstandard.com/news/news200306001.asp a primary source? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure we prefer review articles. The first one was a primary source and the second one is a new report on a primary source which does not appear to be peer reviewed or pubmed indexed. We already had a section on psychiatric disorders. have improved it with better sources which more or less comes to the same conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello thanks for the reply i will read the article on secondary sources that you recommended. Thank you for your advice, it is really appreciated. Sorry if my edit was disruptive as that was not my intention.--CR.ROWAN (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Blacksmith

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at RHaworth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you write on my page, I will reply there. Discussion threads, however short that ping-pong between two pages are an utter pain to read. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dissections

I don't mind dissection at all, but I know (1) most readers do and (2) illustrations are a lot easier to interpret. I think your proposal is exactly what I was trying to explain to Anatomist, but (1) last time I had a look none of those images had a category on Commons and (2) Anatomist refuses to discuss anything and keeps adding those images on an industrial level. No need for a compromise really, WP:IG is clear and simple enough. No reasons for an exception here. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes agree :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DRN

Your participation is requested here. I think Medicinechief forgot to ping you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Androgenic alopecia

I have rewritten the article androgenic alopecia and would appreciate your thoughts please when you have a moment. Thanks. Ramwithaxe talk 02:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Traveler's diarrhea

Unfortunately I didn't notice the big deletion/reformat before I tweaked that ref about the diarrhea vaccine. Just as well you reverted though, as that section was a copy-vio. Here's the lk "Researchers Discover Significant Efficacy of Travelers’ Diarrhea Vaccine", if you missed it. Hopefully it is of some interest. - 220 of Borg 08:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks looks interesting. Still many years to availability I am sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Press-coverage

Hi James. I've the impression that you follow press-coverage of Wikipedia. Here's a piece, in case you haven't seen it: http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/12/how-does-wikipedia-deal-with-a-mass-shooting-a-frenzied-start-gives-way-to-a-few-core-editors/ Merry Christmas! --Hordaland (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

section ordering in colorectal cancer

The guideline says " The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition".
In most cases, including colorectal cancer it flows much better IMO to go from Diagnosis to Management, and to have Prevention (at least primary prevention) immediately before Epidemiology. I might suggest that on the guidelines talk page one day. - Rod57 (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Also I agree with RHaworth above who says "If you write on my page, I will reply there. Discussion threads, however short that ping-pong between two pages are an utter pain to read." - Rod57 (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure so we can discuss this on the talk page of colorectal cancer or at the talk page of MEDMOS. IMO consistency between articles is important as it makes them 1) easier to edit 2) easier to read.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

your reversion of 'See Also" list on Circumcision article

When you say "We do not like See Also lists" - in reverting my edit is it a royal We or can you steer me to a WP policy page that says this." See also" lists abound in other articles I am curious Tumadoireacht

Sure policy is here WP:MEDMOS. If terms are notable they should be combined into the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The Manual of style you referenced is for Medical articles but the general style manual is kinder to would-be See Also folk
Shortcuts
Could you accept that Circumcision is not just a medical phenomenon and such links, particularly those not in the main text may be useful to general readers per policy outlined there--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 03:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The policy I linked to is congruent with "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section." The article is comprehensive and thus a see also section IMO is not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Birth Control Religion

Dear Doc James,

You wrote,

"A number of refs you have added are not reliable including http://www.catholic.org/prwire/ and youtube."

yet you did not just delete sentences referencing those sources, instead you deleted the whole post. Could you explain why you deleted comments from the Pope please. I also noted that the second half of the second sentence has no citation, but you did not delete that. Is there a reason why you deleted the citation needed (which by the way I did not post) but deleted everything I wrote? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbumDomini (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The other reason I removed the rest was that the main article is for a simple overview. We give each religion only a line or two. You can add to the subpage if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Birth Control

How is a textbook or one author's encylclopedia on women a source for Catholic religious views. Again, I submit to you that Catholicism is not a democracy. It's views are not shaped by what so-called members do, nor is Catholic doctrine defined by people who write textbooks. This does not accurately represent Catholic religious views, it represents the behavior of members who are rebelling against Catholic religious views. Does this distinction make sense to you? Under no other religion is such a comment made. Is there a reason for this to be added to Catholics only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbumDomini (talk • contribs) 03:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Its members views are decided by its members yes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_37&oldid=1096249641"