User talk:Doc James/Archive 27

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Urinary tract infection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Incontinence and Viral

Diabetes mellitus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Best

Diabetes mellitus type 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Best

Gastroenteritis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Immunity

History of diabetes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Best

Trauma (medicine) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Preterm labor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Recurring Nightmares

Hey Doc:

Man, I hate to even bring this up again, but looks like we have another person that is adding those $%^&* hyphenations to cancer-related articles (I just noticed it on large-cell lung carcinoma). His User Name is JorisvS ...

Not surprisingly, a brief look at his Talk Page suggests to me that he seems to be a buddy of the individual we have had so many problems with before - although I don't mean to directly suggest any conspiracy ... LOL!

PLEEASE forgive me, but I was wondering if you would mind seeing what you can do about this0 (if you want to, that is, and if you do, at your convenience). This issue STILL makes me so mad I am DEFINITELY going to have a high-speed comeapart on him if I do it, and I don't want to get blocked! Grrrrrr!!!!!!

Your fan: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a couple of pressing issues today, and possibly tomorrow too (need the money bad), but I give you my word that the VERY next time I edit here I will focus SOLELY on doing what you requested of me in your recent posts on my Talk Page. Hey - each and every time I have asked you for a favor, you jump right on it. WOW! You're the nicest guy in all of Wikispace, IMO. Thanks.

I will post you within the next 36 hours and point you toward the results you asked for. PROMISE! See ya, James.

Your pal:

Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a problem with that edit. It just makes the text of the article agree with the title hyphenation. The alternative would be a pagemove over redirect to large cell lung carcinoma. wp:AT is the relevant policy, and it certainly does not shy away from "English-language" punctuation. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The previous consensus has been that we would hyphen as per the medical literature rather than as per English grammar.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but the cited sources from the medical literature are inconsistent, using the hyphen about as often as not, and we don't normally retitle articles absent consensus to do so. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly and that is all that is asked, that hyphens not be changed without consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

But the edit didn't change the title, just made the text more consistent with it. I note it didn't catch all the unhypenated cases, though. While it seems like a waste of time to do this, it certainly isn't harming the article, it rather is a trivial improvement. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder#Status_of_this_article_-_clarification_of_my_position. Hi! I'm caught up in an edit war in an article that extremely important to my field. I know your reputation for working for true quality in health care articles, and I also appreciate your very significant Wikipedia experience. I might well need a reality check at the article referenced above. If you have the time to check it and offer whatever thoughts you think appropriate, it think it would likely be helpful to all of us. Thanks in advance! Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, Jim, I really, really also would appreciate if you became involved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Have commented... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. A more extensive involvement would doubtless be welcomed by all editors on the page, but I'm guessing it would require a substantial investment of time and energy you would neither relish nor be able to commit to. If you don't mind, I might also ask you about sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Antibiotic resistance (Antimicrobial peptides)

While I appreciate your interest in limiting information in this article to material from peer-reviewed journals, my edit relates to what is perhaps the most important development in antibiotics since their discovery in 1928. The development of antibiotics which are not susceptible or minimally susceptible to resistance is something that will earn a Nobel Prize. Let's just put the information in the article and others who are more involved in the field will expand on the sentence or two I have added. I find this approach works well in Wikipedia. Articles or sections I have started with a sentence or two have grown into wonderful articles written by experts in their fields. If you always attempt to stomp out every little change to an article that is imperfect in some way, Wikipedia will stagnate. If you are concerned about the overall quality of this article, please work to improve it rather than removing the work of others. There are many statements in this article marked as requiring citations and I suggest that you may wish to work on adding citations to those statements. Thanks, Tetsuo (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Tetsuo

We are not a news source but rather trying to reflect the current scientific consensus. Thus we need to use references that reflect this per WP:MEDRS. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

antibiotic resistance

I appreciate your point of view. Instead, I have just put in an internal link to Antimicrobial_peptides#Therapeutic_Potential which appears to cover this area in some detail.Tetsuo (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Tetsuo

No it doesn't, I've removed that internal link. That section of AMP has only a single reference, that appears to focus on their anticancer properties rather than their antimicrobial ones. You need a more specific source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've only rolled back 3 times with 2 IP address, my modem has a dynamic IP. The 4th wasn't a roll back it was a correction of weasel words "strongly suggests". This article apparently has 2 or 3 very active people who are selectively rolling back disadvantages to circumcision while allowing advantageous reports to exist with the same stated problems. I encourage you to review these to see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.162.94 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

link on candidiasis

hello Jmh649,

I have notice that you have temporarily banned me from adding a link on the candidiasis article. I respect your opinion but i would like to state that i was NOT spamming, i tried adding the link on the article but when i looked onto the page 10 minutes later, it was gone, i thought it was a system error so i added it again and then you temporarily banned me.

The reason i want my page to stay is because it says additional information such as symptoms and offers e-books that i have used in the pass to cure my candidiasis. After using one of the e-books to cure it, i thought about helping others but i didn't have enough money to pay for a domain and hosting so i signed up with 2itb.com to make a quick website and post it on the article.

I know people today are using Wikipedia for advertising purposes but i just wanted to help people and if there is an issue with my website, i will gladly remove it just so it could stay on this article :)

Thankyou, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earningbaranaba (talk • contribs) 10:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not banned from editing generally. I have however protected the page in question as a lot of people are adding inappropriate external links. There is a site called DMOZ that specializes in that sort of thing http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Infectious_Diseases/Fungal/Candida/

Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Medicine translation in Slovene

Hi, I wanted to notify you that now I've created the WikiProject Medicine in the Slovene Wikipedia and translated the content index of the Health care Wikipedia book. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. I have the start of a simplified version of schizophrenia here on simple English [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

high quality references

Hi James, To which reference(s) were you referring? Were all three bad in your eyes? CMAJ? IRIN PlusNews from the UN? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health? Thanks, Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tftobin (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jmh649, I may have contacted you in the wrong place bc I have not heard from you. Sorry for the redundancy if I am incorrect.DentalSchoolProfessor (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi jmh649, I hope I am addressing you in the appropriate forum. I believe that you may have removed the Herpes Gingivalis content I contributed yesterday. If so, please explain what I did wrong and/or how to fix what was wrong. Thanks, DentalSchoolProfessorDentalSchoolProfessor (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC) A couple of things. One is that we much prefer review articles. And two Herpes gingivalis is basically the same thing as Herpes gingivostomatitis which we already mention Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, DentalSchoolProfessor (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Have replied on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Rectovaginal and Obstetric Fistula

Why would you delete my posts? They were true and not spam! Fistula happens in the developed world all the time. I am going to make changes again and I expect them to remain in tact.§simply_sweetpea

As stated by the bot please do not add links to facebook. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

FB messages

I do not have a webpage for people to go to. Why can't this page get the information out there that they are not alone and give them a place to go? Those other sites on that page are all big nonprofits that ask for money to go outside the US and say that fistula in the states and other developed countries have been eradicated. I am sure you can understand my frustration. Look at the pages I posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply sweetpea (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes but please realize that this is an encyclopedia not a collection of external links to other sites. There are other places that do this better.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hemorrhoids

Hi Jmh, I was wondering why you restored the reference duplicates that I had removed earlier here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hemorrhoid&action=historysubmit&diff=472335526&oldid=472335116 IMO it is unnecessary to cite the same reference sentence after sentence. You may notice that I left the inline citation at the end of the paragraph intact. Thanks, -download ׀ talk 22:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Excellent work on medical articles! Thanks, -download ׀ email 23:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin D

hey, you got rid of one of my edits a few mins. ago because it didn't contain review article citations. I added it back in with a review article citation, and the original primary research article, which is very short and easy for anyone to understand. I'm new to Wikipedia, is this ok? -Ethan Warshow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanwarshow (talk • contribs) 02:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen this post, and reverted Ethanwarshow on vitamin D. James, please check this and other additions by Ethanwarshow. Materialscientist (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Have left a note on the users talk page. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

REfs

According to numerous statements in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), it is clearly acceptable to cite primary sources when reviews are not up-to-date, when the results are stated without interpretation, and when sufficient reviews do not exist.

"For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by other reliable secondary sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NutritionalNeuroscientist (talk • contribs) 18:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A study of 20 people is not notable and is not an appropriate ref. Please use review articles or major textbooks per WP:MEDRS.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The deletion of empirical evidence is counter-productive for the understanding of a topic. If a cited claim requires additional support, then improve the article, and find it, rather than censoring valid controlled observations. NutritionalNeuroscientist (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For a lesson in the proper values when participating in inductive observation and the scientific process, see: The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics by David Harriman NutritionalNeuroscientist (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This differs from academic writing in that we typically use review articles as a lot of primary research is not notable or not in proper context. Review articles put it into proper context. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience, but as I said, when no sufficient reviews or text exist, primary research is acceptable. In addition, the policies clearly state that the addition of secondary research is ideal, not the deletion of primary research with no replacement. I have written peer-reviewed reviews and primary research, and as you say, reviews occasionally put research into a broader context. However, it is rare that a review actually extends the breadth of topic, context, and clarity above and beyond that of many primary research articles, indicating that the value and clarity of context must be evaluated on a trial by trial basis. Again, I assert that if primary research is cited, the appropriate action is the improvement, not censoring of peer-reviewed research.NutritionalNeuroscientist (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not the position of the majority of the community. For major topics reviews are available and thus they should be used nearly exclusively.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather unfortunately, readers often look to Wikipedia for the advice they should be getting from a health care professional so Wikipedia has adopted WP:MEDRS to make sure that in cases of human health we are using the sources that have had the greatest over sight, which serves to protect our readers. We as a community are not health care givers, although individuals may be, and we must be careful of novel approaches such as might appear in single studies. As James has said we rely on reviews, as well as academic textbooks, meta analysis, and some journals. That said exercise in pregnancy is not a novel or a new idea and deserves a fair amount of attention. You might try looking further for more compliant sources.(olive (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

Thanks Olive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I also appreciate the additional perspective. In an objective senese, this kind of policy causes stagnation, prepetuates current paradigms (even when false) and inhibits progress, especially the innovative ideas which are not supported a current intellectual paradigm (eg. textbooks). Is it our job to protect people from information, especially at the expense of processing and synthesizing it? Thanks.NutritionalNeuroscientist (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia rather than a research paper, its job is to document the predominant knowledge as is, rather than to be creative. The key word is encyclopedia.(olive (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC))

Heading

ref added, Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns: Gregory J. Boyle and George Hill (Journal of Law and Medicine December 2011). http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.79.237.76 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We need to use review articles... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources

How do we site sources? I was not sure how to add them into the article and then link that to the references section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladygazelle (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

GA?

Hi James. I've been thinking recently about nominating the circumcision article for the GA process. I know there are some rough edges that would have to be fixed first, but I wanted to get some thoughts about how realistic this is at the present time. What do you think about the idea? Jakew (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Would need to have all the primary research replaced by secondary sources. While some of the article is supported by secondary sources some of it is not. Once this has been achieved I would than support a GAN.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems entirely reasonable. Do you by any chance have access to the full text of this article? It looks like it might be useful. Jakew (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Email me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That proved easier than I had expected, actually. There are a couple of primary sources left in the "pain" section, but most of the rest have now gone from the 'medical aspects' section. Would be grateful if you'd look over my changes. Jakew (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

your (removed poor sources) of inguinal hernia articles

before removing content again, please read the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokotillon (talk • contribs) 11:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Herpes edits? I don't see your comments in my talk page

Hi. Sorry to bother you again; you seem to be quite busy. You said "Have replied on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)" but the only thing I see on my talk page is regarding Diabetes. I learned a lot with that but don't see anything there from you re: Herpes. What am I not seeing?? I want to get it right. Hopefully, I have my settings made to email me when you add something to my talk. Thanks, DentalSchoolProfessor (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Translators Without Borders and WP Medicine initiative

Hi James, I got an email from Asaf at the Foundation about coordinating press outreach with you for the translation project. Can you contact me directly by email at mroth (at) wikimedia dot org to discuss further? I'd love to get on the phone with you and talk.

thanks, Matthew (wmf) (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks look forwards to connecting.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

• News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

• In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

• WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

• Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

• Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Acetaminophen

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/newsevents/news/newsrecords/2011/11November/First-study-reveal-paracetamol-works-could-lead-less-harmful-pain-relief-medicines.aspx

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/medicine/2011112216550011.html

Here's proof. You could have just googled "King's College Paracetamol" to see that the information I'm adding is correct instead of deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasharin (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that here we are an encyclopedia rather than a breaking news source.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Paracetamol Sourcing Problem

Okay I added in 3 extra sources, one being the King's College website. The King's College website must be seen as a reliable source but could you fix any problems with the editing this time instead of just undoing the whole thing... Hasharin (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not one of correctness but the fact that we do not report findings such as so and so from here found this and so and so from here found that. We just describe the conclusions of secondary sources as fact.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay is this source an acceptable review article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22109525 Hasharin (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a review article but a primary research paper.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of these might be helpful. It certainly looks like a "hot topic". LeadSongDog come howl! 00:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with a graph

Your graph here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WomenBMIMort.png has the 22.5-24.9 data listed twice.

Keep up the good work!

Uncategory (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and will fix --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Spina bifida article disagreement

Please see Talk:Spina bifida#"Notable people" versus "Notable cases". I hope we can resolve this amicably. Roger (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder

You probably don't remember me, but I was one of the editors on your side in the great Rorschach test ink blot controversy. I was wondering if you might take a look at Dissociative identity disorder, as a similar situation has developed. Someone identifying himself as a counselor who treats multiple personality disorder (or DID with its new name) has showed up, along with someone from his of-site blog, to make massive changes to what was a stable article for years in an attempt to remove any and all mention of the controversy over the diagnosis. See, for example differences between about a week ago and now. The editors in question knew they did not have consensus to make the changes, and indeed are considered meat puppets per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tylas, but they got some edit warring in and then got the article locked. Your input, if you have time, would be welcome. DreamGuy (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently protected. I will have a look eventually. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

AD

Hi, thank you for your message and saw your comments on my edits on the article Alzheimer's Disease. I don't quite understand what do you mean, since I am a new comer so I am looking for some guidance and clarification from you. The paragraph I added referenced a peer-reviewed published article in a reputable science journal. Do you mean another source referencing the same, such as a review or discussion of this new test, should be waited before this being added to this Wiki article? And/or the source should be from a medical journal? Thank you for your help.Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Replyed on your page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Understand it better now. Much appreciate. Thanks! Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Talk:Tay–Sachs disease.
Message added 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Talk:Circumcision.
Message added 23:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

cough treatment efficacy

Hello. I notice that after I removed the unsourced claim that standard symptomatic treatments are ineffective from the lead of the "cough" article, you reverted this change with the note that lead paragraphs don't require citation sources. However, the body of the article also does not provide a source for this claim - the "treatment" section references only ineffective treatment in a pediatric context. I reviewed some of the other source material for the article, such as ""Acute cough: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge", and it also fails to support the generalized claim in the opening paragraph. Is there a solid source available to support the statement "Cough suppressants such as codeine or dextromethorphan are frequently prescribed, but have been demonstrated to have little effect"? Thanks for your time. 69.130.26.162 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at PMC PMC2827356, a recent review. Note the table. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. After reviewing this article, I do not agree that it supports the lead paragraph assertion as currently worded. In the table you referenced, the effect of Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide is described as "slight but significant" and morphine is described as "40% decrease[...]". Furthermore, it should be noted that much of the data and descriptive statements are only in reference to chronic cough, not all cough. As I read the current claim, it seems semantically equivalent to "cough suppressant drugs of any type have no meaningful effect on coughs of any type" and I think this assertion is not currently supported by the references. I think the current claim needs to be made more limited if it is to be an accurate representation of the referenced research articles. 69.130.26.162 (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This ref states they (codeine and dextromethorphane) are not recommended in children http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20176183 as they have not been show to be effective and there or concerns of safety. And this ref states "Our previous review9 as well as an earlier one10 noted that, in recent studies, commonly prescribed antitussives such as codeine and dextromethorphan had limited or no efficacy relative to placebo in humans with chronic cough." Yes we have one study supporting the use of morphine in COPD patients with chronic cough http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17122382 however as noted "The use of morphine as an antitussive is likely to be limited by widespread caution regarding the side effect liability of the drug" and this is only one study and may not generally be applicable. Thus I do not see a problem with " Cough suppressants such as codeine ordextromethorphan are frequently prescribed, but have been demonstrated to have little effect.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I repeat myself, but I don't understand why a statement about efficacy in treating *chronic cough* can be used to support a generalized assertion which does not include that limitation, and I also don't understand why the possible negative side effects are relevant to the basic question of whether or not a given therapy is effective in reducing cough. I won't be making any edits to the article or debating this issue any further, but to me it is a good example of how source information can become distorted when summarized. The article as currently worded overstates the conclusions that can be drawn from the research that is being used to support it. 69.130.26.162 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not just this one ref but there are a number of refs that support this statement for both acute and chronic cough. Will ref better eventually.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your deletion of my late father's citations.

I put all of my late father's references on wikipedia years ago and they have stayed on Wikipedia until now. Maybe you could just move on please. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaghuVAcharya (talk • contribs) 18:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Ghavami and Sardari "New chimeric anti-tubercular dendrimers with self-delivering property" African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 5(18), pp. 2550-2554, (16 September, 2011)

It may be sufficient to support the inclusion, though I'm not sure.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI and WP:MEDRS thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

edit to "Management of Baldness"

Hi Doc James,

Yesterday I made an edit to the "Laser Therapy" section to the "Management of Baldness". It appears that you have deleted my edit.

I worked very hard on this as I believe that people (like me) want objective, factual information about this class of products as they consider therapies and products for this topic. The article includes the medications (Finasteride and Minoxidil). My edit providing more information on laser therapy products (LLLT) is an enhancement to this resource.

Please tell me if you think my edit needs some correction or provide a reason why you deleted it.

Many thanks! Arthur9361 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Have improved the ref for the content in question. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Book-related Editing

Hey James:

Hope your break was good, and things are well with you and yours.

I have had several looks at the book-related sections you wanted me to improve (cancer/pathophysiology/carcinogenesis/lung cancer). Personally, I thought they looked pretty good, generally speaking, and particularly when considering the lay target audience, I didn't feel any changes were really called for.

Perhaps when you get the time and inclination, if you could be more specific about exactly what parts of these sections you don't like, or that you think are problematic, I could suggest or change some things. Were I God - or Doc Wolfe - I would definitely tweak and update the lung cancer article/book section some, but most of that would be at the "cutting edge", not something really necessary for the lay audience.

I'm going on an extended break myself here in about a week, probably, and will follow up with you afterward. Take care, my friend, and thanks for all your help.

Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you back yet? ... Back yet? ... Yet? ... now? ... Now?? ... NOW??? NOW??????

D*mmit, that does it James - I'M FREAKIN' SUING YOU :-O

LMAO and PIMP:

Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Cliff thanks for the kind note and will be away from home for the next 4 weeks. I guess the main think that is needed is that the content in question should be referenced to secondary sources such as major textbooks or review articles from the last 5 years (10 at most). This is typically needed to get articles past WP:GA--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS and Circumcision

Doc James, the issue of whether or not the Circumcision article should follow WP:MEDRS guideline has come up again. You've expressed views on this before; if you don't mind, could you weigh in here please? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with your edit of said sentence in the article "alprazolam". However, This entire sentence was not originally mine. I only edited the sentence with the words "similar to those with the same 5 properties" in the latter half of the sentence . . . Thank you for you're concern, but I do not appreciate being called a "vandal" or being told to play in the sandbox. I am well aware of the rules on this site, and was merely trying to make a grammatical change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.24.41 (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes noticed that and my apologies.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on anatomical terms

I know you're on holiday and also more involved in medicine than detailed anatomy, but I was wondering if you would have time to look at something when you get back. I have recently written an article about the sublingua, a secondary tongue found in prosimian primates, and some of the terms line up well with the terms for homologous (or analogous?) structures in human anatomy, while others do not. I have started a discussion on the talk page, and I was wondering if you would be comfortable chiming in. If not, do you know another medical doctor, preferably with detailed knowledge of oral anatomy, who might be able to help? I'm trying to work with both the expert lemur veterinarians I know in real life as well as the anatomists/medical experts I can find through Wiki. If you can help, I'd greatly appreciate it. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Am away for the next few weeks. Do not really know anything about anatomy other than human... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Jmh649,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Would be happy to help. I am going to be in Africa for the next 4 weeks and thus content may be difficult. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)