Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63→Archive 65

Quack!

The WikiProject Medicine QuackStar
The image above contains clickable links
Your exceptional duck-hunting efforts on Wikipedia have not gone unnoticed; for all your hard work in defending the Wiki from the legions of badly edited quackery, I award you the WikiProject Medicine QuackStar.
Also, good hunting. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 09:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a much more fitting barnstar for your recent endeavors compared to the one I gave you last time. ;P
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Greek translations

Thank you so much for the barnstar, and thank you and the translation team for all the great work. I will be carrying over more articles to greek wikipedia, doing proofreading and whatever wikification is needed. In time due, I will also translate graphs and pictures, as I have done for el:AIDS, so that the effort is thorougly complete! Regards, Badseed (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Chronic active EBV infection

Hi, I've yet another question. This time it's regarding the naming of an article on chronic active EBV infection. See I'd like to create a page on said topic and I'm wondering whether I should call it Chronic active EBV infection, Chronic active EBV disease or Chronic active Epstein Barr virus disease or...? Fuse809 (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I would go with "Chronic active Epstein Barr virus disease" But what do the most recent reliable sources use? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

They usually use "Chronic active EBV infection", but reliable sources are usually formal sources like for instance journal articles that tend to assume that whomever is reading it is a doctor/pharmacist/nurse/etc. Fuse809 (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy with which ever you decide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'll use "Chronic active EBV infection", it's more concise. Fuse809 (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Another page name query

Hi, I've noticed that the tularaemia page is named tularemia even though the ICD-10 names it the former way and WP:MEDMOS says that article titles should reflect either the DSM-5 or ICD-10 and since this isn't a mental disorder the only applicable spelling comes from ICD-10 which calls it tularaemia. So do you think I should move the page? (I ask encase there's some discussion regarding this page I'm not in on) Fuse809 (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

See how you've responded on a more recent post on ya talk page I'm going to guess you haven't seen these two queries. Fuse809 (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We do not change the page name from American to British spelling or vise versa. Thus should not be moved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of American vs. British, this is a matter of the ICD-10 using it and the fact that WP:MEDMOS says we should use ICD-10 for our names. It's nice to have a systematic way of naming articles and hence I'm thinking that we should stick to the ICD-10's spelling. After all the Americans spell paracetamol as acetaminophen but as the INN for paracetamol is just that we stick to it as it's a nice systematic way of spelling the drug. Fuse809 (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Would propose on the talk page. I have no strong feelings. But this change would need consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a discussion topic on WP:MEDMOS on this topic. Fuse809 (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also discuss on the talk page of the article in question if you have not already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I asked the question there is that there are other articles I'd like to move, due to their names and frankly I think it'd take too long to ask questions on each of their pages so I thought I'd ask a general question on WP:MEDMOS. Fuse809 (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Anesthesia

Hey James - when you have a minute can you give me some advice. I'm overhauling anesthesia to MEDMOS. The existing article has several massive sections on the personnel who provide anesethsia (2.5 Physicians 2.6 Nurse anesthetists 2.7 Anesthesiologist assistants 2.8 Operating department practitioners 2.9 Veterinary anesthetists 3 Other personnel) which will be badly overweight once the change is complete. They'll also be out of place imo, as the article is a general overview of anesthesia. Since each has their own article, I'd like to reduce it to a single sentence or two with a link to each article, starting with "All healthcare providers give anesthesia (blocks, pain management, sedation) with GA/IV sedation being provided by ....." or something like that. I'm worried it will start an editwar given the previous edit history of the article. Any sage advice. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes if it is dealt with on the subpage you could definitely trim it back. You probably want to keep a bit of an overview though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Revisions

Excuse me, why have you reverted my submissions to the DM type 1 page and long-acting insulin analogues pages? The links led to Diapedia, which is an online repository of free and peer-review unbiased information. It can serve as a reliable source of information for both professionals and students that look for in-depth information after checking out the Wikipedia page. Eagerly awaiting your reasoning.

Kind regards, Pepijn Looije — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepachino (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:ELNO. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Testosterone

Hi, not long ago u inserted a much needed sentence and citation about contraindication when pregnant. The same source went on to say a bit about nursing women, but didnt use word contraindication for that part. I'm not knowledgable about warning levels in medicine, but i presume "not recommended" is a lesser warning than "contraindicated," so I didnt want to say testosterone was contraindicated when nursing. Anyway, I just made a direct quote. If you decide that my direct quote from that source is inappropriate, can you suggest medically correct paraphrasing, if possible? (I do realize you are probably extremelybusy, so if you don't have time that's ok)65.130.253.244 (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Diabetes mellitus type 2

The Word file with the article translation is not uploaded properly (see Workflow: Delivery section). It may have to do with the file extension. Could you help, please? Dcirovic (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes appears to be a problem. Will send an email. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Obesity

Side note about this article, I was looking at the pathways that users seem to take into Wikipedia on the subject and was struck by how few hits obesity gets. It looks like weight loss is the major resource for the average user (and the article doesn't look well written to my eyes). It's already ID'd as start-class, high importance for Medicine. I'll flag it to edit after I get the anesthesia or if you want to tag-team it, let me know and I'll chip in. Ian Furst (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Weight loss gets 93,000 and obesity gets 116,000 [1]. Much of Wikipedia needs work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Ba - I was looking at Talk page stats on obesity. Ian Furst (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Hey Doc, you put back a review here which I'd included earlier - but I think it was a mistake. I called it Cochrane-update-2013, but it's a 2011 paper. We were already using the more recent 2013 one ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

We have this 2013 review [2] which is look at ACUTE low back pain. And we have this 2011 review that is looking at CHRONIC low back pain.[3] Is this what you are refering too? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
D'oh - yes I saw "Cochrane" "back pain" "update" and the lead author names the same, and equated them in my mind. Oops. I'll check back on these tomorrow ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not against simplifying. We just need to address both these types of LBP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Ok. Although I think that in my web page: http://webs.ono.com/fotgcren/index.htm there are ALL the scientific references needed to validate the text I put on the Coeliac disease page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOTGCREN (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A pubmed indexed recent review article is better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I recreated original articles by using archive.org and therefore they should be considered as reliable source. I don't see any problem with these links as all information is identical to original articles. It's definitely better than having dead links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetoriole (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hum interesting. We already had the archive link so why link to anxiety action? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Because archive.org don't display well on some browsers and mobile devices. Also it loads very slowly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetoriole (talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Have removed much of that section because there is no such thing as "childhood anxiety disorder". Children get the regular types of anxiety disorders as adults generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

James Heilman2

Hello, Doc James, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on James Heilman2, appears to be directly copied from http://shelf3d.com/i/schizophrenia. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on James Heilman2 if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I need a work space in mainspace to get the coloring right on the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

References

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

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I will post both here and the same copy on your page...hi Doc James, thanks for your help on testosterone article. Please forgive-this reply will be written hastily--but i feel

that the types of information on TRIP:database are not for some purposes as good as that from the new york times(nyt), the popular press, which as you know, my edits in question were taken from, because: review articles require highly specialized training to interpret, and we wikipedians, whether we have that training or not, are requested not to make interpretations. in fact the type of comments that dr. anawalt made are likely not to be made in a review article on TRIP, but they are notable and of use. Particularly, the edits i made came from an article by a reporter(Roni Rabin) specializing in medical news, and were direct quotes. Now, direct quotes published in the nyt are highly reliable, as quotes, whether or not the quoted information is correct. One reason for this is the attention paid to the nyt as "newspaper of record" in the usa-faulty quotes are quickly spotted. So if reliability of quotation was your concern, that shouldn't be, at least in my opinion. Another thing, is as "newspaper of record", nyt is presumed to contact respected medical authorities, or when not, identify them as "alternative opinions, blahblahblah". Furthermore the authorities that were contacted, such as Dr. Anawalt, are then able to give general estimates of the testosterone situation in north america, that i would guess are unlikely to be found in TRIP:database, at least without the use of interpetation, using our own knowledge, of us as wikipedia editors, which is, I think, against wikipedia policy. When you questioned reliability, was it because you couldn't be certain that dr. anawalt was a respected authority, or that perhaps that what he said was opinion? But after looking at anawalts citaions on TRIP:database itself, (and straqightforwardly that he was in nyt) can't we say he should be given approximately the same authority as that of a citattion from TRIP? And if it's because it's just anawalt's opinion , shouldn't the opinion of a respected authority, quoted in a major newspaper, be given some representation in a wikipedia article? [Of course, still another point is conflict of interest: the scuttlebut reported in the socalled(by WP:medrs) "popular press", that medical articles in medical journals frequently have conflict of interest--articles, maybe review articles also? may even be researched and written by pharmaceutical companies and signed by physicians, even without seeing the raw data.]

But here, for example, this is a previous version of "Adverse effects" section, from not long ago, at least nominally written with information from cited review articles:
<<<<Whether or not testosterone causes important adverse effects is unclear.[98] In light of the above there is tentative evidence that it does not affect the risk of death, prostate cancer or cardiovascular disease.[98][99] It does increase hemoglobin levels and decrease HDL cholesterol levels but it is not clear if these changes are meaningful.[98]

Testosterone in the presence of a slow-growing cancer is assumed to increase its growth rate. However the association between testosterone supplementation and the development of prostate cancer is unproven.[100] Nevertheless physicians are cautioned about the cancer risk associated with testosterone supplementation.[101]

Fluoxymesterone and methyltestosterone are synthetic derivatives of testosterone. Methyltestosterone and fluoxymesterone are no longer prescribed by physicians, given their poor safety record.

Ethnic groups have different rates of prostate cancer.[102] Differences in sex hormones including testosterone have been suggested as an explanation for these differences.[102] This apparent paradox can be resolved by noting that prostate cancer is very common. In autopsies, 80% of 80-year-old men have prostate cancer.[103]>>>>

This version above does not give understandable indication of what may be important adverse effects to the average reader like me. -It's good to mention the stuff about HDL etc, interpreted or not, but it means little to an important part of wikipedia readership. Also what interpretation is given seems to have been given by a wikipedia editor: "In the light of the above..."--wikipedia editors are asked NOT to put 2 and 2 together, NOT to make deductions, NOT to figure more out in the light of something. So it's good to have Anawalt's reliable "opinion" here from nyt on general considerations-it provides what we wikipedia editors shouldn't provide. Also, given the cautious nature of what anwalt's statements, it can provide a safety anchor to future versions of this section, if for example you are hit by a truck or too busy to watch it. (Like, in this old version--suppose you[I think it was you] hadn't been around to find the citation enabling a warning of contraindication during pregnancy that you inserted later on:--Anwalt's cautious statements could have still have made women athletes foreseeing pregnancy to be rightfully more cautious.)I won't delve into the lack of mention that this was research on males in therapy, and the utter lack of mention that the citations were only research on males, not females, is a form of inadvertent interpretation by wikipedia editors.--we need general assessments and opinions from experts like Dr.Anwalt! Well, Doc James, thanks for your time, hard work, and skills, and i hope we can work this out.--Richard Peterson.65.130.253.244 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus here at Wikipedia is that we use review articles for medical content. Newspapers sometimes overstate or mis state experts positions.
We also sum up "we don't know what the long-term safety profile" as "Whether or not testosterone therapy in men causes important adverse effects is unclear" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Air pollution. (Alzheimer's disease)

What is wrong with the air pollution sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobgenius (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS we use secondary sources for medical content.
  • This is a primary source look at a mouse model [4]
  • This is a primary source of a couple of dose autopsies [5]
  • And this primary source had an N of 19 [6]
Are there any review articles? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do you remove Hwp1?

Hi!

This second time I put all the references needed.

Hwp1, a protein located on the surface of a fungus called Candida Albicans (the most prevalent pathogenic fungus in humans) is a transglutaminase substrate. Hwp1 is used by Candida Albicans to stick itself forever (isopeptide bond) to human epithelial cells by means of the transglutaminase crosslinking activity of the human host and thus avoid been removed from the infection sites. [1] Hwp1 share homology in its primary sequence with gliadin.[2] Gliadin like Hwp1 is a transglutaminase substrate.[3] A number of small intestinal disorders may have a similar small intestinal biopsy appearance than those caused by gluten in coeliac disease. Between them: specific lesions caused by Candida [4]


Why do you remove Hwp1 from Coeliac Disease page this second time?

No infromation about this second deletion.

All the references in this second editting are also bad for you (Science, Lancet, Clin. Exp. Immunol...)

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOTGCREN (talk • contribs) 10:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again!

Here the references deleted:

SCIENCE 1) Staab JF, et al. (1999) Adhesive and mammalian transglutaminase substrate properties of Candida albicans Hwp1. Science 283:1535-1538

THE LANCET 2) Nieuwenhuizen WF, et al. (2003) Is Candida albicans a trigger in the onset of coeliac disease?. Lancet 361: 2152–54

CLIN EXP IMMUNOL 3) Sakly W, Thomas V, Quash G, El AS. 2006. A role for tissue transglutaminase in alpha-gliadin peptide cytotoxicity. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 146:550–558 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOTGCREN (talk • contribs) 10:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I am the Hwp1 person. I didnt know I had to put the signature.

Below my signature:

--FOTGCREN (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not remove all but simply shortened it. Also please read WP:MEDRS. If you are unclear what a review article is please read the article on the topic. This is a primary source [7] as is this [8] not a secondary source. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Menopause

Hello Doc James. Recently I tried to cut out some of the redundancy from the menopause article (it turned out that there really was a lot of repetition in it). It also then occurred to me that the subsection in there about HRT for menopause is very long, and we do actually already have a B class article on Hormone replacement therapy (menopause), which presumably is far more complete? I was thinking we should trim down the HRT section in Menopause, making that section quite short and using a hat note referring readers to the "Main" article. What do you think? Also since I don't really know very much about HRT, would you like to do the pruning and transfer anything to the main article that is worth saving and not already in there? Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead, BE BOLD, and cut down the HRT section myself, but I would appreciate it if you would give the remaining paragraph (and general context) a once over to see if it seems OK. I suppose cutting down an hat-note-ing might also be appropriate for some of the other subsections, such as SERMs etc... Invertzoo (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James for going over the article and making improvements -- can I just remind you as a general point that it is best always to leave edit summaries (except for things that are marked as minor edits)? When you leave edit summaries, another editor can more easily understand what you did to the article. It also sets a good example for brand new editors to follow. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Metformin

I see you've been active a few times on this page, and basically what I'm leaving this message about is the fact it doesn't have a drugbox, now this could just be an instinct of mine seeing how I come to Wikipedia from a pharmacy background but I think a drug, like metformin, deserves a drugbox. Especially seeing how many of the fields of the existing chembox really belong in a drugbox (like pharmacokinetic data). Fuse809 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to put a drugbox in an article with a chembox, remove its chembox validation listing from here - Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Index - and add it to the drugbox validation here - Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Index. Then change all the chembox fields/parameters to appropriate ones for a drugbox (see [9] for an example). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew how to do it, what I'm here to do is to ask if I should, in case some objection has been raised to this obvious change (as the good doc has edited this page several times and hence would have noticed the chembox instead of drugbox and hence I'm left asking the question why he hasn't done this already) that I'm unaware of. Fuse809 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Never mind this discussion is now redundant as I see as Boghog has beat me to the post. Fuse809 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes please go ahead and add a drugbox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hwp1 again

Hi again!

Well, I think Hwp1 (Candida Albicans protein) is as required to be cited in the Coeliac Disease page of Wikipedia as VP7 (Rotavirus protein). VP7 is greatly related to Coeliac disease, but Hwp1 too.

You have shortened my text at a level in which Hwp1 has disappeared from the text.

VP7 is cited in the Coeliac Disease Wikipedia page and Hwp1 is not.

Moreover, VP7 is cited in the transglutaminase section when VP7 is NOT so far defined as a transglutaminase substrate. Hwp1 however, not only has been proven as a transglutaminase substrate, It has also been clearly associated with celiac disease by the homology between Hwp1 and gliadin. You have removed Hwp1 from my text.

Sorry, I am not enough expert to determine which of the three references below

1) Staab JF, et al. (1999) Adhesive and mammalian transglutaminase substrate properties of Candida albicans Hwp1. Science 283:1535-1538
2) Nieuwenhuizen WF, et al. (2003) Is Candida albicans a trigger in the onset of coeliac disease?. Lancet 361: 2152–54
3) Sakly W, Thomas V, Quash G, El AS. 2006. A role for tissue transglutaminase in alpha-gliadin peptide cytotoxicity. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 146:550–558

are primary, secondary o tertiary sources. The main reality is that lines below are proven facts:

1) Hwp1 is a transglutaminase substrate.
2) Hwp1 share homology in primary sequence with gliadin.
3) Gliadin is a transglutaminase substrate.
4) Hwp1 and gliadin enter human body by the same route: oral route and transglutaminase acts on both gliadin and Hwp1 being this transglutaminase action related to associated diseases (Coeliac Disease and Candidiasis respectively)
5) Hwp1 and gliadin are cause of diseases in human oro-esapho-gastro-intestinal system.
6) Hwp1 (Candidiasis) and gliadin (Coeliac disease) related diseases share histophatological tissue damage characteristics.
7) Hwp1 is a Candida Albicans virulence factor in Candididasis disease and gliadin is the causative agent of coeliac disease.
8) Removing of Hwp1 (hwp1 knockout mice experiments) is related with significantly reduced virulence and removing of gluten from coeliac disease patients diet is related with the disappearance of the Coeliac disease.

If you consider all of the above do not deserve Hwp1 to be included in Tissue transglutaminase section of Coeliac Disease page of Wikipedia. I accept. Wikipedia has its own rules. But I think You're hiding information that could be of interest to people.

--FOTGCREN (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Try the talk page of the article in question. Take some time and learn about sourcing. Basically the type of sources you want to use are review articles. If you use pubmed you can determine what kind of source it is under publication type. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Crohn's vs nod2

I cited "Molecular biology and evolution" paper, which I came accross recently. You claim that: 1) MBE is not per reviewed which is not true, maybe it is not indexed in your favourite medical db, but for sure it is per reviewed 2) this paper is research paper, not review (and it is from 2013 so I do not think you will find this info in any reviews) 3) my advice, just read the paper, not the title or abstract and we than can talk (I can easily guess that you did not do that based on that you remove edit in minutes afer edition).

I will not redo this edition as it is pointless. I hope we will never meet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsp90 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I never said it was not peer reviewed. What I said was it is not a review article. There is a difference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Strong benefit of wikipedia is that it can assimilate informations quickly. I think you are too conservative. Research takes usually 1-2 years, than it goes to reseach article (1 year), then ~4-5 years latet it goes to review, and then after another few years it goes to books. Now, you say that all wikipedia articles should be as old and as not to date as the paper book. I would say that it is rather step back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsp90 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is more or less the consensus at WP:MED. Feel free to ask for clarification. The other issue is that I would consider this a mis interpretation of the source in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

About you

Hi James, I am a user active in both English and Chinese Wikipedias. May I know how you are related to User:Wakkie1379? Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 17:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

We are working on the translation project described here in collaboration with Translators Without Borders [10] Are you interested in becoming involved? The user Wakkie adds the content from the TWB website and then pings me to clean it up. Saves me one step. Ideally I would like all articles added by local Wikipedians. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
If you're interested in the project, you can just call me up for more information in Chinese. --Xiaoxing Ye Talk to me in zhwiki —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Perfect. By the way I just had a prof from a medical school in China wondering about how he and his class could get involved. Can I pull one or both of you into the discussion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Translator Without Borders is an association outside Wikipedia. So I am not really clear about what it is all about. So do you know where is the content at the website? Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 10:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Remember to {{talkback}} me or link to my user page if you replied. I don't keep watching your talk page. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 10:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The project is described here [11]. The progress is seen here [12]. Instructions on how to add articles and provide feedback are here [13] If you have further questions let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and wow, you are providing your account name and password! That is rather dangerous... Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 13:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It is my account name and password for the TWB website. There is not really anything people can break. But I do really appreciate them adding translations. Have adjusted the name that it displays as to reduce confusion. Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi James

I am putting together a presentation for nurse and doctors about VTE and wanted to use one or two of you images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SaddlePE.PNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deep_vein_thrombosis_of_the_right_leg.jpg

I am very new to the whole copyright thing and so wanted to check with you if that was ok?

I would credit you and wikicommons at the bottom of the slide that they are used with a link.

It is for non commercial use and purely as a training package written on powerpoint for people to read in the hospital/Trust that I work.

Many Thanks

Joe194.176.105.142 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Joe. Sounds great, please build upon our work. That is why we are here :-) If you simply state it is from "James Heilman, MD, Wikipedia" That should be sufficient. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hyphens in compound modifiers

Why did you undo my changes to Phenyltropane? Just saying it "Was fine before" does not justify undoing another editor's work that brings an article into compliance with the MoS. See WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3. Chris the speller yack 19:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. Was the other edit I meant to undue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ursodeoxycholic acid

Hi, James, I'm sending this message to ask your opinion. Currently the page for ursodeoxycholic acid is named ursodiol, which is the USAN but not the INN or BAN (both of which are ursodeoxycholic acid) of it and hence as WP:PHARMMOS says the name should be the INN I feel the need to ask you whether I can feel free to move this page accordingly. Fuse809 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Something tells me you've been distracted by your other messages as you haven't responded to this message so I'm going to try leaving this message to get your attention. Fuse809 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure yes please move. If you have problems happy to help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh great, there's a redirect page at ursodeoxycholic acid and hence I need an admin like yaself in order to allow this move. Fuse809 (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you see this?

Re QG RfC: did you see this, on RfC talk? I'm working on annotating it and adding diffs. And I'll put that on the main page... yeah, I really wish Mallexikon had done a better job with evidence and that I'd read it through much more carefully. Anyway, you seem bright enough and non-ADHD to work through a talk page thread, so please have a read-through, and tell me if you see any problems with QG's conduct, or is it just me. (Remember, the question is user conduct, not whether or not the other editors in the thread made the right call, consensus-wise, re: is X a fringe journal.) thanks, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 10:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure will have a look. Have not read it yet. IDHT is very hard to prove. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS says one should use secondary sources from the last 3-5 years. Often for less actively research areas 10 years should be used IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
That's addressed in the thread (thoroughly, e.g. [14]], and all other editors accepted the source. Remember, this is about QG's conduct, not article content. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 23:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible typo

Hi, JMH. Here, [15] did you really mean to write " ... and thus do support support restricting / banning QG. " ? Cardamon (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks corrected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Staab JF, et al. (1999) Adhesive and mammalian transglutaminase substrate properties of Candida albicans Hwp1. Science 283:1535-1538
  2. ^ Nieuwenhuizen WF, et al. (2003) Is Candida albicans a trigger in the onset of coeliac disease?. Lancet 361: 2152–54
  3. ^ Sakly W, Thomas V, Quash G, El AS. 2006. A role for tissue transglutaminase in alpha-gliadin peptide cytotoxicity. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 146:550–558
  4. ^ Freeman H. Celiac disease: a review. B C Med J. 2001;43:390–395.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_61&oldid=1139058184"