User talk:Doc James/Archive 113

Congratulations

at getting back on the Board of Trustees. Considering the controversy surrounding your previous tenure on that board, this is a milestone in the history of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward now to a strong Board that will prioritise supporting the interests of the volunteers who provide and manage the content of the encyclopedias. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Kudpung. And I am open to suggestions regarding how this can be achieved :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see it too, and the strong showing of support will hopefully send the right message to the rest of the board/office/etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I am delighted to hear this news and want to let you know that I voted only for you because I felt so strongly that your presence on the board is deeply important to productive content creators. You have my complete support and I hope that your term will be a productive one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm also pleased to see you returned to the Board. You are our elected representative and I hope that fact is no longer lost on the permanent members. You've acted well on our behalf before and I expect you'll do so again. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Chris troutman :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Violation of fundamental Wikipedia policy

Someone who is sane is now on the Board? Something very wrong here! Congratulations! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jim1138 :-) I will definitely try my best. We have a number of excellent board members currently so hope we can make some decent headway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

• From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!

• News and notes: Global Elections

• Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's lead sentence problem

• Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured

• In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?

• Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press

• Technology report: Tech news catch-up

• Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

jaundice page...hemolytic jaundice...urine color... regarding edit from "normal" to "dark" and lack of source

hey there, pathoma was the source. i noticed it was changed back. Since i don't own pathoma, and uploading a photo requires me to check a box that says i own the rights to this image, i figure i should explain what the book says.

under "Extravascular hemolysis" as a cause of jaundice, the clinical features are listed as "dark urine due to ↑ urine urobilinogen (UCB is not water soluble and, thus, is absent from urine)..."

Later, it implies that the marked increase in Unconjugated Bilirubin from the hemolysis will (eventually) force the liver to conjugate it and release it into the bile. After which the gut flora turn it into urobilinogen, which, itself colorless, turns into stercobilin (in the case of feces) and browns, or/and goes into the blood, gets filtered by the kidney, and darkens urine (as urobilin).

Now, I can nod my head at this and follow it, but why is this wrong? Would the liver not increase its output of conjugated bilirubin?

Pathoma is a nice source for board exam review but is not generally considered a WP:MEDRS-reliable source. I would recommend using a different source to substantiate your proposed edit.

Will see if I can find something. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Added this source[1] From what I understand it is the conjugated bili that causes the color not urobilinogen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The "oxford handbook" link is a good one. Even though there's a total increase in bilirubin, which eventually does force the liver to create some more conjugated bilirubin (and yes, from that urobilinogen), the conjugated bilirubin doesn't spill into the urine, leaving it at a "normal" color. Thank you very much.

You are welcome :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

treacher collins syndrome

I recently made an edit to TCS page - clinical features. I included 'microtia' and linked it to the relevant page on wiki. You changed this back saying 'latin not required' The page is littered with the medical words ie. ptosis. I believe it's right to link microtia as TCS is a common cause of this. I have reverted your edit.

treacher collins syndrome

It was linked to microtia. A common cause of microtia is TCS. This is a valid link to a valid medical article. This is an informative edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjosh c1234 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Drjosh c1234 per WP:MEDMOS we are to try to write in easier to understand English rather than Latin as much as possible. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies

The Facto Post newsletter that was posted here for me was malformed – a newbie mistake with the messaging tool. Apologies for that.

I noticed that you also reverted the posting to WT:MED. If the newsletter is of no interest to you, I'll of course take you off the mailing list. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Charles Matthews I am happy to receive a copy. On WT:MED we do not even post the Signpost their and this newletter is not med specific. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with vandalism/peacocking in medical pages

Hello, I am not an experienced wikipedian, I mostly proofread articles as I read them.

However, one thing that's bothering me is the constant vandalism (in the form of peacocking and self-promotion) in many medical pages. This is one of the worst ones, for example: ABVD. Check the edit history to see what I'm talking about.

I write to you because you're the most trustworthy person I know on wikipedia and I'd like your input/help regarding this. I have been reverting those edits, but they are becoming much more frequent and I can't keep up with them.

Thanks in advance! AlexCdvp (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Have protected for two weeks. Thanks for the heads up. User:AlexCdvp ping me if further issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank you! AlexCdvp (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

COI on Tse Wen Chang's Article

In response to your question about my connection to the subject, I have put COI disclosures on both Tse Wen Chang's Talk page and my user page. As stated in those disclosures, I was not paid to do the work, and Dr. Chang is neither my family, friend, client nor employer. He is my mother's colleague, whose stories I heard from my parents' discussion, and thought was worthy of sharing. In the process of working on this article, I interviewed the subject in person, and obtained the photos that you had questions about. I've obtained the subject's permission to upload and use these photos on the Wiki community. Thanks for checking with me. Eli Toake (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we will need formal release by the subject in question through OTRS before we can use the photos.

Got it. I'll request for the subject to send an email using this template: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates Eli Toake (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

And who is User:BiggsPen, User:Eli Toake? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who this User:BiggsPen is? I saw that you suspect sock puppetry between me and this user, but this is not me. Eli Toake (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi James, I'm also trying to remove the banner about COI on top of the article Tse Wen Chang, but I noticed that you put it back. I've put disclosure statements in both the article's Talk page and my own user page. In addition, the article was created in the Articles for Creation space, and was approved, further clearing COI suspicions. I am not paid to write the article, and I am neither the subject himself, nor his family, friend, client nor employer. I interviewed him a few times. Is there something else I should do to clear the suspicion? Eli Toake (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

After contemplating WP:COI, I don't think my situation qualifies as COI––I am neither personally nor financially affiliated with the subject, and wrote the article to the best of my knowledge, and with good faith. If you think the article does not display neutrality, please point out the non-neutral parts in its Talk page, and I will go over them with you. Otherwise, per note 6 on WP:WTRMT, I intend to remove the COI tags in a few days. Thank you for your time! Eli Toake (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove that as the article creator. My concerns remain. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing a page

Would you mind checking whether Arclight (biology) meets WP:GNG to have a stand-alone article or could be redirected to a another page.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Godric and Doc James. The creator of Arclight (biology) is User:Rami.shinnawi who has not been active since December 2016. I will leave a ping for User:MXGHarryLiu who is the (recent) creator of Genetically encoded voltage indicator (GEVI). From a quick look, it appears that the content of Arclight (biology) should be merged into the GEVI article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I am very supportive of User:EdJohnston suggestion. We should merge and redirect brands to generics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Patient participation

Doc James, Sorry to interrupt your vacation.

As you can see from your archives, I have been waiting for months now to get a decision on my proposal:

• Patient participation - this new page links to the merged older pages, now redubbed

• Shared decision-making in medicine

Bluerasberry has not replied any more after his original expression of interest. On the list of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MED there have not been any replies.

Shall I go ahead and replace the old pages, or do I have to submit my proposal for consideration somewhere else?

Seniorexpat (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you clarify what exactly you are proposing to do again? You are planning on replace what pages with what? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the existing page

• Patient_participation

It contains IMHO mostly Shared decision-making, as does the separate (old) page

• Shared_decision-making

So I have merged those two into my proposed

• Shared decision-making in medicine

Likewise I propose to update the anchor page with new info. and other interpretations of the generic term "Patient_participation"

• Patient participation

Please note that the new anchor page refers to the new

• Shared decision-making in medicine

as its first link.

The main problem that I see is to determine whether there are links somewhere else on Wikipedia that will need to be updated. Otherwise I could just go ahead and replace the old pages with my new ones.

Seniorexpat (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay looks reasonable to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply; hope the rest of your vacation is enjoyable. My edit showed up one defect in my skills: I was unable to update the new longer title from Shared decision-making to Shared decision-making in medicine Seniorexpat (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I took care of doing the page move. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Overturning G5

You just deleted SealFit as G5, but there was a substantial contribution (i.e. from the actual creator of the page) prior to being edited by Suntai87. I would request that you undelete the article, thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

G5 is also invalid as they did not make these edits at the time the master was blocked (SPI was only filed two days ago). Primefac (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, most of those deletions weren't valid since they were created before the SPI was filed. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Primefac Do you not think User:Wikiseal123 raises concerns? Will add it to the SPI aswell.

We also have a WP:TOU which disallows undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I know they have a COI (I'm pretty sure I discussed it with them somewhere or other). You're welcome to add them to the SPI if you feel it appropriate.

My main concern (in particular with my second and third points) was that WP:G5 is specifically for pages created after the master is blocked. You can't retroactively delete pages created in April or May for a sock that was blocked in June. That's actually specifically mentioned in the G5 criteria. Now, will I be shedding a tear over these articles? No, and it's unlikely anyone else will even notice, given their usual editing patterns. But I've gotten flak for deleting pre-block sock-created articles, and so I'm a little bit more sensitive to it. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

We can use common sense. This group obviously has been around for a while doing undisclosed paid editing. That we have not found the oldest sock yet does not mean they do not have previously blocked accounts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked into your other deletions. As I said, my main concern was that G5 was not applicable to SealFit. Undisclosed paid editing is not a valid G5 reason, nor is it really a reason to delete outright, and there was substantial editing by an editor other than the blocked sock. If you feel like taking me to AN over what I feel is a poor undeletion, that's fine, I'll make my case there. I just don't think it's worth the time and effort for either of us. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing is a massive problem on EN WP. The accounts in question are obviously a long line of undisclosed paid editing accounts. They will have prior blocked accounts else why would they have moved to one account per job? So yes G5 applies. Also these articles are unambiguous promotion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Then tag it as G11. I won't object to that. I do object to deleting a page for G5 when a page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion and that have substantial edits by others. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You know, you're right. Shouldn't have undeleted. Still a discussion I'd like to have, and I still think that the page shouldn't have been deleted as G5. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I deleted for a few reasons. The entry process does not allow the flexibility to list multiple criteria. With respect to G5, because we only keep a limited time going back of accounts IPs addresses, it is often difficult to determine the original master for these long term undisclosed paid operations. It is obvious IMO that this group of accounts does have blocked socks in their past. We need to keep looking into this operation though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way with respect to SealFit, the article was created by this IP[2]. Company is located in the same spot. After their AFC was declined they moved to an undisclosed paid editing company and thus this account.User:Suntai87 Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I dealt with this SPI and G5'd quite a bit as part of it. In the very limited case of sophisticated promotional sockfarms, it is common practice to speedy delete everything they created under G5. My not-so-airtight argument would be that undisclosed paid editing is disallowed by our terms of use, and so meets the definition of a ban ("a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits on Wikipedia pages", according to WP:BAN). I'd say that justifies G5. More importantly, this is one of the only situations where I think WP:IAR can be appropriately invoked for an administrator action; it makes little sense to spam deletion processes with hundreds of articles because we took our time discovering the sockfarm. I talked to James by email recently about starting a discussion to formalize this common practice, and we should do that soon. I'm a bit tied up at the moment, so I'm not starting it myself, but I look forward to participating in that discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I am inclined to weigh in (oddly enough, on the side for deleting sock creations regardless of date). Please ping me when this discussion happens. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms of HIV/AIDS

Hi Doc,

The main page for HIV/Aids has the ARS window at 2-4 weeks yet the Signs and symptoms of HIV/AIDS has days to weeks.

Both have separate references however as 2-4 weeks reference is more recent (2010) compared to 1998 I think the Signs and Symptoms page should updated to match the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.212.234 (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free to update. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Reversion on Potassium chloride

Hi there!

I noticed you reverted my edit on potassium chloride (diff here, due to the claim that potassium chloride is harmless for food/culinary use. I'd just like to point out that my edit was purely a copy edit/language edit, and the original text had the same claim buried deeper in the paragraph (since at least 2014). I've started a discussion on the talk page, as I agree it would be good to cite the claim (or reword it if citations can't support the "harmless" wording—which is a very strong claim!). Laogeodritt ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 18:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

He's currently away, I'm certain he'll respond ASAP(as for the talk page[3] sources cited, the #2 is Wikipedia itself?[4], and #3 is not listed as review [5]), thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Potassium chloride is not harmless. But let me look at the ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

?

Any particular reason? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

For this [6], we do not do this per the WP:MOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ant particular section? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? We do not link like you have done or create redirects like you have done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

We do if we are WP:Bold...if it improves the encyclopedia...and, as in this case provides a direct link to a specific article namely tobacco related carigens. Where is the disruption you claim? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for maintaining the direct link...a lot less disruptive than your original edits.Bosley John Bosley (talk)

You linked to a non-existent article. That's a red link. I am confused. What is this about? QuackGuru (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

They linked to "Cigarette smoke contains at least 73 known carcinogens" and then turned it into a redirect. I have deleted the redirect as inappropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

List of cigarette smoke carcinogens exists as a legit link. Maybe the original intent is fulfilled by this instead. Bri (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup that is what I did. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Like this? QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please look at what reverted on injury and ask yoursef is less useful than what I put, also you reintroduced bad formatting; removed useful links that were not previosuly present. Please read what you changed and think outside of your field

Please look at what reverted on injury and ask yourself is less useful than what I put, also you reintroduced bad formatting; removed useful links that were not previously present. Please read what you changed and think outside of your field. Rather than reverting the whole think, perhaps it would have been more useful to remove the portions you thought did not belong there. What you do is discourage people from making useful contributions, even if not perfect or in agreement with what you think.

This is not a dictionary. Injury is not "harm" and not "hurt". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Myocardial Infarction GA efforts

I'd be honored if you'd take a look at the current version of MI and chime in on whether you think it's GA worthy. I'm seeing a huge improvement since this process started, and am leaning towards passing it within the next week, assuming a few final things are ironed out. Having said that, I'd like a second set of provider eyes on it, if you (or a TPS) can manage that. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Took a brief look and agree it is much improved User:Jclemens. Will take me a week or so to look in depth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Traction needed to heal fracture?

Could I ask you to take a look at Traction splint and see if you can supply a graft to fix:

The Sager splint is an innovative splint that has introduced a new concept in the fixation of the consists of a metallic splint that is placed between the patient's legs.

Something is needed between "fixation of the" and "consists of". This break was introduced back in 2008. I think there is a 'femur' missing, perhaps an 'and' to tie things together, from perusing a couple Ghits, but I am not trained in these procedures... :) Shenme (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Shenme have adjusted some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

• News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)

• In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill

• Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take

• Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues

• Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth

• Recent research: Utopian bubbles: Can Wikipedians create value outside of the capitalist system?

• Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Great to see the another Signpost addition come out :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Favor

Your attention is appreciated in editing Ovarian cancer, but is it possible to retain the wikilinks I insert? I put in considerable time linking articles and don't understand the benefits of removing wikilinks. Best Regards,Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Barbara (WVS) Apologies as did not mean to remove those. Have restored. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. You are a gentleman.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I'd retired

Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. Though we disagree fundamentally on some things—in particular on your failing to appreciate the long term conundrum created by the first-time-to-appear, self-publication of visual data at WP (based, it seems, on the satisfaction you take from your doing it), and then the rare occasion that you favour your WP social network over matters of substance in content/behavioural disputes—I nevertheless cannot but have great respect for your leadership in developing one of the best Projects at WP. Bonne chance, all the best with WP Medicine. Otherwise, I believe we will be in contact again, as things begin to work top-down instead of bottom-up on the self-publication and HIPAA-compliance matters. (See User:Leprof_7272 page for departure comments, if interested.) Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Leprof_7272 while we have disagreed on a number of things I am saddened to see you go. I sincerely wish you all the best and if you return happy to work together again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing of "nicotinamide" by senior scientist with expertise in subject matter

Hi Doc James,

I am making edits to the nicotinamide page. I have a fair amount of expertise in this area, and the role of nicotinamide in the treatment of glaucoma. Please read the recent paper in Science (2017) by Pete Williams, Simon John and colleagues (PMID: 28209901) and their follow-up article (PMID: 28487632). The murine results are compelling.

Please let me know if you have any issues with the science or content.

I have also bolstered the toxicity section, since this is critical information for Wikipedia readers.

Finally, I have added a section on the use of nicotinamide by Canadian and US health professionals to treat schizophrenia. This work is also quite interesting and goes back to the mid 1950s.

My email address is (Redacted) and my Google Scholar link is (Redacted)

Name (Redacted), Ph.D.

Contact details (Redacted), identifying position as a Professor of Medicine and geneticist

Subject areas: neuroscience, ophthalmology, bioinformatics, genetics, genomics

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.91.219.179 (talk • contribs)

Welcome. We tend to stick with review articles rather than primary sources per WP:MEDRS. This took me a little time to adjust to when I started editing here aswell. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Inverse Warburg effect - advice

Is a COPYVIO right? Was thinking a bold redirect to Warburg effect#Alternative models might be in order? Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Some is very similar to [7] specifically the sentence beginning "The energy is derived from two types of processes". Much of the rest appears closely paraphrased. User:Diannaa? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictures are form [8] but it is under an open license. They however have not attributed the author properly.[9] Yes I would redirect User:Alexbrn. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Keratoconus

I believe the photo should have the caption "Munsons sign". Could someone arbitrate the decision, as you clearly disagree. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjosh c1234 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have started discussion on the talk page already. That is the best place to comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Unsure as to how to see this. You have left a three edit rule on my user page, which, I could argue applies to you as well. Please allow my edit through, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjosh c1234 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

here. I will ask for further opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjosh c1234 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit DKA

I'm not sure if it was an autogenerated message regarding citations when editing medical articles, but I was only trying to fix a typo in the article (said "remarkable hyperglycemia" when it should say "unremarkable hyperglycemia"). This is a relatively significant error in regards to the description of a etiology for euglycemic DKA, and my change is supported at length by the article originally cited.

It was correct before. Responded on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

T2D edits

Hi James,

The reference you gave is old (2004) and the author cites this without a reference. There is newer research that overturns these assumptions, that an absolute lack of insulin in T1D is not correct. See https://t1dexchange.org/pages/one-in-every-three-people-with-type-1-diabetes-produces-insulin-years-post-diagnosis/, and http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318094.php. I don't know how to phrase this better right now, but I ask that you leave my edit in place for the time being because it is more accurate than what was previously written, or find a different way to phrase this.

Thanks, CellbioPhD (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It is actually supported by two textbooks from 2011. Not sure why you have not responded to the talk page discuss[10]. You will need to get consensus.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Coronary artery disease

I've sent you an email re edit I made which was undone. Not sure how to proceed

Saltwaterotter (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Saltwaterotter This edit looks better[11]. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James can you help me fill up information about the newly created vasopressin_(medication).

Unfortunately I have no spare time in editing this new website as I am a high school student. Thank you in advance. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hushskyliner (talk • contribs) 14:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Hushskyliner not sure what you mean? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay have adjusted things some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer article

Hello Doc James, Someone still needs to edit the Pancreatic cancer article. My accurate, helpful edits, could have been kept by you as they were complementary (enhanced thoroughness and accuracy). There is room for improvement of any article. Garshepp (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You removed a number of higher quality sources and replaced them with lower quality ones. You also made the language in the lead more complicated. I thus did not see them as improvements. The uses of "/" is not per the MOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A couple of questions...

Hi Doc James,

I has reason to read the liver biopsy article and I think it would benefit from your input. It presently contains a scrambled ref:

In Liver biopsy#Indications: It is very effective measure of ishak fibrosis score progression.<23></John C. Hoefs, M.D.,1 Mitchell L. Shiffman, M.D.,2 Zachary D. Goodman, M.D., Ph.D.,3 David E. Kleiner, M.D., Ph.D.,4 Jules L. Dienstag, M.D.,5 Anne M. Stoddard, Sc.D.,6 and the HALT-C Trial Group; Rate of Progression of Hepatic Fibrosis in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C: Results from the HALT-C Trial; 2011 Gastro 141(3):900-908 > 23

There also appear to have been efforts to add references:

In Liver biopsy#Value and limitations: Both the baseline Ishak fibrosis score (22) and the rate of Ishak fibrosis score progression based on serial liver biopsies (23) independently predict clinical outcomes.

I am guessing that the 22 and 23 refer to pseudo-references that can be seen at the end of this section but those were removed by an IP editor in February 2016 in his or her only ever edit. There have been only four edits since then (cumulative diff), none making any substantial content change.

I could fix the refs but I have no idea if the content is accurate. It was added in December 2013 as that editor's sole WP edit. Given the references all include John C. Hoefs as an author and the editor was JC Hoefs, there is certainly the possibility for COI / promotional editing. Would you please have a look at the article?

Secondly, I was glad to see that you won re-election to the Board, so my belated congratulations! I read the recent Signpost and noticed the following in the News and notes section: WMF Board Governance Committee: James Heilman joined the WMF committee as a volunteer and advisory member. According to the announcement on Wikimedia-l, Heilman will be a non-voting member of the Board Governance Committee and his tenure will serve as onboarding in case of future Board appointment. James edits the English Wikipedia as Doc James and is an administrator. I'm hoping this advisory / non-voting position is not indicative of new game playing to disempower you, and that you have equal status with other members of the WMF Board (and that this is some sub-committee or something. Chris troutman has also expressed concern / confusion so I would appreciate some clarification as we are probably not the only ones who are puzzled.

Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey User:EdChem sure will take a look at liver biopsy.

With respect to the board of the WMF, while I have been selected for the board by the community, I have not yet been appointed to the board by the board itself. The current board will decide whether or not they wish to appoint me on Aug 8th just before Wikimania.

They have invited me to join the BGC as a non voting member which I think is encouraging regarding the probability of my full appointment to the board in Aug of 2017. Once / if appointed I will than likely become a voting member of that committee. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, I was aware that the elections are not actually elections, that at best they are advisory to the Board that appoints its own members, I certainly do hope that there is no attempt to defy the views of the community that chose to !vote. I also hope that your perspective on the advisory / non-voting appointment proves accurate. Where are the results of the !election shown, I'm curious of the strength of support for the selectees? Thanks (and thanks also for looking at the liver biopsy article), EdChem (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@EdChem: These are the results. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. Over 80% support for Doc James, and I !voted to support two of the three !elected selectees. I wonder if Jimbo could manage a support level that high... EdChem (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Doc James, and thanks for looking at the liver biopsy article. I notice that there remains added materials connecting to a (missing) ref 24 and 25 in the section Liver biopsy#Non-invasive alternatives. This edit shows the material being added with the intended reference. I would also appreciate hearing your view on the accuracy and quality of the liver biopsy article. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes that article does indeed need a lot of work User:EdChem... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)