|This is a Wikipedia user page.|
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.
|This user is aware of the discretionary sanction topic area(s):
They should not be given alerts for those areas.
- governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
Remember me? I was wondering maybe I can put all those products into a table chart? Just to look neat? Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPICGAMER890 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
What is independent overage? EPICGAMER890 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Do they have independent overage? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh EPICGAMER890 (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- Textbook that discusses the topic. But likely there is no few reliable sources as I am not sure it is notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Your edit to Addison's DiseaseEdit
Better not edit war on Addison's Disease or I will alert the admins about you and/or protect the page. I am EDIT WAR NEGATIVE and take edit wars VERY seriously. Now please stop making disruptive edits on Adrenal disorder-related articles or there will be trouble. Thanks, Dino245 (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Addison's Disease. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dino245 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:Dino245 "ugly" is not a justification to remove an image that is classic for the condition in question. Ie you will need consensus to do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:Doc James Fine, case closed. You got what you want. Dino245 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:Dino245 you simple need to get consensus. The gums is a classic place to find increased pigmentation especially in people who originally have darker skin (ie Wikipedia needs to be useful for more than just white people). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Can you please explain why did you revert my changes to Ipratropium bromide under the contraindications section?
The contraindications I added are verifiable by several sources such as those below (this is a subset of sources):
These also appear in the pamphlet for Atrovent Nasal Spray albeit with a different phrasing, see under PRECAUTIONS/General where it reads "ATROVENT® (ipratropium bromide) Nasal Spray 0.06% should be used with caution in patients with narrow-angle glaucoma, prostatic hypertrophy or bladder neck obstruction"
Moreover, I was also given the same exact information by a urologist.
If this information is present in the article, it could save people a lot of trouble. Please accept my edit.
- You provided no reference. Please see WP:MEDHOW.
- Those are precautions not contraindications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. In medical articles I see hidden comments such as
<!-- Definition and symptoms --> and
<!-- Cause and mechanism -->. I checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles and they are not mentioned. Is it customary to leave them in, or are they left over from a standard medical article template? I.e. is it okay to delete them? —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:DocWatson42 we generally structure the lead of medical articles to follow the body of the text. Those comments help to keep it organized like that. A bunch of us use them. Thus best to leave them in place :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Okay. :-) —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Newly created articleEdit
Perhaps a regular contributor to AfC will notice before you read this message, but I still think you can help out with this, if you are willing. I found The origin of epileptology and the historical evolution of epilepsy via Special:NewPages, created by an editor with whom you've already discussed referencing medical articles. Vycl1994 (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:Vycl1994 needs a fair bit of work I agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Mother Hutton & DigitalisEdit
I noted you removed my reference to Mother Hutton on the Digitalis article. I would be interested to read your thoughts on this. Thanks
--BooksXYZ (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:BooksXYZ at what edit are you looking? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:Doc James in this edit, you removed the reference to Mother Hutton. I was interested in your reasoning. User:BooksXYZ(talk) 11:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:BooksXYZ Unclear were or not this person existed or was simple made up for an advertising campaign. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:Doc James The person existed, only her name and the details are in doubt. Withering notes her in his own account. It is an important epistemological (and social) insight, that modern pharmacology does not start with an authority pointing the way, but with the observation of unschooled practitioners This is a particularly pointed insight here: Wikipedia is written by everyone, not just authorities. --BooksXYZ (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Were does this source state "Hutton"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Came across this conversation, hope ok to add in...." Unclear whether or not this person existed or was simple made up for an advertising campaign"...., making of a myth. Interesting... Whispyhistory (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Your calculation on the eteplirsen page is incorrect; see discussion on the eteplirsen talk page.Edit
Please see the talk page of the eteplirsen article. Your calculation of 1.5% is based on incompatible figures, as discussed in that talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonMoulton (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Okay yes agree you are correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)