User talk:Doc James/Archive 51
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Million Award
|
The Million Award | |
| For your contributions to bring Gout (estimated annual readership: 3,426,000), Tuberculosis (estimated annual readership: 4,025,000), and Obesity (estimated annual readership: 1,599,000) to Good Article status, and Dengue fever (estimated annual readership: 2,559,000) to Featured Article statusI hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment--very few editors will ever appear on this list once, much less four times--and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display these userboxes:
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Obesity to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Tuberculosis to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Gout to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Dengue fever to Featured Article status. |
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it!
Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Great initiative by the way. IMO we Wikipedians should be concentrating our efforts partly on the articles that are the most read. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I completely agree; after 12 years as an encyclopedia, it's time for us to get off our butts and finally write the big articles. I was surprised to look at WP:5000 recently and see how few of the articles there--whether traditionally academic or pop culture--we'd brought to reviewed quality (GA or higher).
- There's no way to know for sure, by the way, but from what I can tell crunching page counts this week, you're probably one of the two or three most widely read editors on Wikipedia. (The only comparable editors I see so far are User:ThinkBlue, who's brought a lot of movie star bio articles to GA and FA, and perhaps User:Wehwalt, who's done a lot of work on US History, but of course I could be missing a dozen others; my methodology isn't rigorous.) Can't thank you enough for all that you do here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hemorrhoid, Pneumonia, HIV/AIDS, Syphilis, Urinary tract infection, Hepatitis C, Gastroenteritis, Migraine, and Asthma should all be over a million readers in a year :-) Suicide should be close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wow! I'm sure you're right. If you'd be willing to add some of those to the HoF table at the Million Award page, it'd be a help! Otherwise I can later.
- You know, it's funny--I almost created a userbox for "This user has received X Million Awards", but then I thought, "Nah, who could possibly earn enough of them to make that worth it?" But you might get one of those after all.
-- Khazar2 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hum. If we use 100,000 per month as the rough amount that would get an article over a million for the year, medicine would have about 250 of them out of 26,000 article (arround 1%). [1]. If there was also a 2.5 million award that would drop the number of articles down to about 40 or 50. I am not sure if any would hit 5 million. Maybe a couple. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Whew, you had me worried that I had 250 more of these to give out today, but I see now that you just meant potential candidates. I'm working through the list now; looks like there are about 50 qualifying articles for the top tier of the award.
- In retrospect, I do wish I had created a "Multimillion Award" tier; I'd checked the Popular Pages of some wikiprojects to try to get samples, but I didn't realize what a higher proportion some projects like Medicine had. Given another year or two the HoF may get a bit unmanageable and need to be reconfigured or scrapped. But since that would mean we've gotten hundreds more of the most popular articles to GA/FA, it'd still be a big win.
- And speaking of which, I owe you more bling--a lot more:
- Hum. If we use 100,000 per month as the rough amount that would get an article over a million for the year, medicine would have about 250 of them out of 26,000 article (arround 1%). [1]. If there was also a 2.5 million award that would drop the number of articles down to about 40 or 50. I am not sure if any would hit 5 million. Maybe a couple. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hemorrhoid, Pneumonia, HIV/AIDS, Syphilis, Urinary tract infection, Hepatitis C, Gastroenteritis, Migraine, and Asthma should all be over a million readers in a year :-) Suicide should be close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Great initiative by the way. IMO we Wikipedians should be concentrating our efforts partly on the articles that are the most read. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing HIV/AIDS to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Hemorrhoid to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Pneumonia to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Syphilis to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Urinary tract infection to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Hepatitis C to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Suicide to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Migraine to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Asthma to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Gastroenteritis to Good Article status. |
| | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Anaphylaxis to Good Article status. |
|
|
The Jillion Award | |
| For winning an astonishing 15 Million Awards and counting, I hereby present to you this Jillion Award. (As any liberal arts PhD knows, any number greater than 10 million = 1 jillion.) It's been a real pleasure to discover your incredible body work through this project; you may be the most-read editor of reviewed content in Wikipedia's history. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC) |
Congratulations! Keep up the good work. Your work is quite commendable. I do mostly fringe notability articles that I hope get to million a year. I'm sowing seeds now that I hope will someday yield a harvest of Million awards. I am eligible for a bunch of quarter millions, but am hoping for the big time (see User:TonyTheTiger/QAviews).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thank you for approving my edit to colo-rectal cancer research. It means more to me than you might think.
CensoredScribe (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
With reference to your talk, I don't have any printed material to present but I can give you some web links which can help you
- Bulleted list item
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_Padmini http://www.bhraman.com/location.php?location_id=33
http://hindurajput.blogspot.in/#Jauhar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhiraj Bandyopadhyay (talk • contribs) 19:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
More malaria
Hi. I thought the guys who quoted a source about the use of a fungus that is sprayed on mosquito net had got the wrong end of the stick - See Beauveria bassiana, but looks like that is what the source says: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/science/10mosquito.html?_r=0 I find it an odd idea, spraying nets with something that will take forever to kill the mosquitos. For starters, if a mosquito lands on a net, there is hardly any contact with the net. If it tries to squeeze through the mesh, perhaps then, yes. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
:(
Why did you undo my edit at Asperger syndromeBobherry talk 22:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
PPACA
Message added 16:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Some baklava for you!
|
Thanks for showing me that cool reference tool, wish I could donate. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC) |
Fluid restriction
All this doesn't belong in Drinking but could be helpful elsewhere. When moving it, I thought it might be deemed voluntary dehydration, but I'll look for other options. Sorry if it was disruptive.SteveStrummer (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is a treatment of SIADH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not that section's author, but I would like to find it a home. If you think it's useful to integrate it into the SIADH article, please do. I haven't found any other alternatives yet. SteveStrummer (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is a treatment of SIADH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 August 2013
- Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective
- WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks
- Traffic report: Reddit creep
- Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland
- News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments
- Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlock?
Could you unlock the redirect Wikipedia:Wikimedia and set it to Wikipedia:WMF? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
And could you delete Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation so I can move Wikipedia:WMF there? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
And could you delete Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Foundation as well, for the same reason (preparing for a move)? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly. But oops: in effect, I accidentally asked you to create a double redirect. Can we have Wikipedia:Wikimedia redirect to Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation instead of WP:WMF? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
do we have to have the photos?
hi doc. i appreciate this page very much. my mother had ms, as does my brother and i have recently been diagnosed myself. so i am a friend. however, when my 10 year old daughter did a google search and found this page, i did not expect her to find full male nudity in the photos. she was shocked and i with her. i understand that these are completely clinical and also interesting because of their historical nature. but at the end of the day, they still show a totally naked man. and honestly, i do not see any value in seeing him take a few oddly animated steps when the above is the payoff. with so many of us using i-devices which dont allow for normal filtering, is this really necessary? could at least the important parts of him be blacked out if you're going to use these? this isnt an obscure topic. it's something many children and teens would research for educational purposes. i'd love it if someone would consider that before assuming full frontal nudity is fine without warning, as long as it's clinical in nature.
thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.131.225 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- My position in the discussion is here Talk:Multiple_sclerosis#Animation. My main issue is that I find the animation distracting from the text. It would be nice to have it set up such that it only moves when clicked on. It appears that what needs to be done is changing of the file formating to something like this [2] which will than display like this [3]. If you are able to help make these formatting changes it would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Leaky gut
Doc - have you seen the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_gut ? I thought such slanted, manipulative writing didn't usually get past the Wikipedia editor army. Surprised this hasn't been cleaned up yet and thought that if I bring it to your attention, something might be done. Dave Biskner (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
A Consensus review paper you may find of interest
I just came across this paper while researching another related topic, Consensus paper: pathological role of the cerebellum in autism 2012 which may help improve the aging Autism article dolfrog (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
An Invitation to Wikiproject Traditional Medicine
I would like to invite you and anyone else whom might be interested, to support wiki project traditional medicine in getting started. The projects goal is to improve coverage on topics of traditional medicine practices; using primarily ethno medical and anthropological journals. Though mostly of anthropological value the input from medical professionals such as your self would be welcomed.
- Current practice or past practice? Much of it I would deem to be undue weight for the main article. We do have articles such as Alternative treatments used for the common cold Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Birth Control GA review
Thanks for your message. I've updated the review. Cheers, LT90001 (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 September 2013
- News and notes: Privacy policy debate gears up
- Traffic report: No accounting for the wisdom of crowds
- Featured content: Bridging the way to a Peasants' Revolt
- WikiProject report: Writing on the frontier: Psychology on Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case opens; Tea Party case closes ; Infoboxes nears completion
- Technology report: Making Wikipedia more accessible
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Acne vulgaris change
Hey Jmh, why exactly would the 1998 article on acne epidemiology be considered a "better ref" than a brand new 2013 review article? Granted, it's not a review dedicated solely to the epidemiology of the condition, but epidemiology of conditions can change over time and the newer source reaffirms it. I think it was perfectly appropriate to enter it in, especially since I did not remove the older reference. If you can explain in more detail, I'd be most appreciative. Thanks. I also replaced the link to the overview article without the library URL, that was accidental.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes good point. The 1998 paper is a little old. My concern with the new paper is that it is not pubmed indexed. For a US publication that can sometimes be a sign of concern. How that ref was placed could make it looks like it is not supported by the 1998 ref.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, in the future, I'd prefer you attempt to discuss any concerns you have about articles I've used with me prior to submitting it to a more public forum. Now other editors are involved and that is making this unnecessarily complicated (and admittedly annoying). I'm not mad at you, I'd just like you to attempt to contact me first next time if you have concerns about a journal article I use, okay? thanks Jmh. I hope you've been well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Happy to if that is your preference. It is unclear if there are significant concerns around if a journal is pubmed indexed or not. I do not have access to this source and thus cannot properly look at it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
References
You have left a note on my talk page asking me to add references to review articles. I would be glad if you could tell me the context of the message. If it pertains to the text I have just added to some articles, let me assure you that I would add the references soon after. If you are telling otherwise, you might not have noted that my edits primarily focus on adding and improving references to various articles. Would be glad if you could add some further feedback. DiptanshuTalk 14:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks pertains to these two edits. [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
HIV/AIDS
Dear Jmh649, I know that you are intelligent enough to see that the citation is from a 2006 report, but the content states that the practice continues to occur—we either need to update the citation, or change the content. I have chosen the latter; does this make sense sir? If I have missed something, I apologize, as I am engaged in a considerable amount of work at present.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Sepsis
jmh,
NOW@NEJM is a WP:RS. According to WP:RS:
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.
NOW@NEJM is written by a doctor/editor and it's under the NEJM's full editorial control.
Also, NOW@NEJM is not a lay source. It uses terms that a lay reader wouldn't understand. It seems to be written for medical students and other medical professionals.
This link is valuable because it's a free, open source summary by an editor of some the main points of the article. It belongs in the article. But you can't call it a lay source -- unless you're willing to be inaccurate. --Nbauman (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Nbauman, I just made this edit and relevant discussion is also at Talk:Sepsis. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Lets discuss it at the talk page. There is lots of easy to understand material on sepsis that can be found via google. I am happy with bios compromise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I'll go along with that. That's enough WP:BRD cycles for me. However, I will point out that (1) the NOW@NEJM blog is a WP:RS. (2) it would be good to make it clear in the citation that NOW@NEJM is free. (3) You can find a lot on sepsis via Google, but NEJM is more authoritative. --Nbauman (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Lets discuss it at the talk page. There is lots of easy to understand material on sepsis that can be found via google. I am happy with bios compromise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Cerebral palsy
Not for nothing, but have you even looked into the article of David Ring? It's extremely clear that he has cerebral palsy. This isn't something hard to prove... The revert you made doesn't seem to be productive, so I'm confused. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 14:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thats interesting
I was actually starting a review article with some colleagues and noticed that some of the info here is sorely outdated compared to what we tend to understand on the research side of things. I find it interesting that wiki puts up secondary articles over primary, but I guess that is to A) add another level of review and B) add simple references for people to garner information from.
I will update with secondary sources, let me know if there are any more issues
Cheers ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ristorilsm (talk • contribs) 12:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you look at the refs in the article your addition appears to be an attempt to refute a 68,680 pt meta analysis with a 647 pt primary primary research trial.[6] So yes for obvious reasons we require secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Rudolf Virchow
Rudolf Virchow needs protection again, for whatever reason, from vandalism. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Needle exchange programme on dispute resolution noticeboard
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Needle_Exchange_Programme:Talk Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Article on med info in printed vs online form
Hello - I came across this article today and I thought you might have some interest in it:
Can we use these images if we give attribution?
Some images from this pmc article would plug some gaps in our commons repertoire: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3087208/figure/F0001/
It says "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited." Lesion (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- No we unfortunately cannot use these images. IMO Wikipedia should allow images with an NC license. We should be less restrictive on this point. Not sure if this would be possible to change. It would require wide ranging support (a likely years to do) but would be a major achievement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
How can I enter the piece of information I attempted to add on the Quetiapine webpage about bipolar disorder?
I realise that secondary sources are best when it comes to talking about established medical practises but I see no harm in mentioning some additional research that's been done on quetiapine. Fuse809 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh and furthermore why did you revert my edits on the Bipolar Disorder page? I realise I had not quite finished the table but but it is a big chunk of work so cut me some slack. Fuse809 (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Secondary sources are strongly prefered. There are lots of high quality ones out there and they do a much better job summarizing the current scientific position on the question at hand.
- The table has been moved to the subpage here [7]. It is too much detail for the main article which we try to keep more accessible to the general reader. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Will you permit me to write an extra section on the quetiapine wiki page entitled, "Research", under which I write what I had under "Bipolar disorder"?Fuse809 (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
They may be preferred but it doesn't mean alternate sources aren't allowed otherwise why would the wikipedia-editing interface have the ability to cite journal articles? Most articles on wikipedia about drugs do have some information on additional research.Fuse809 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Review articles or journals. Take a look at the article on schizophrenia. Not a single primary source is used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I did cite peer-reviewed articles on the acetylcarnitine page http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/01/1216100110 & http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1744-8069-2-20.pdf so why did you delete it? Fuse809 (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Peer reviewed is NOT the same as review article. Review articles are typically peer reviewed but not all peer reviewed articles are review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Peakaboo I see you, but it doesn't seem like you see me :p
I don't know whether this makes a difference as far as your notifications but I left you a message under my quetiapine question before so it would be just dandy if you could reply to it. Fuse809 (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Cochrane Library Citations
Hi James! If you have a minute, could you check the citation examples page for the Cochrane donations? 59 accounts were approved and delivered this week :) Wikipedia:Cochrane/Citations --Ocaasi t | c 23:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Ocaasi I filled out the online form for my account on 29 August, a few minutes after you notified me on my User Talk page. I haven't heard anything since. Shouldn't I have gotten something from Cochrane by now?? Thanks...
Zad6801:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 September 2013
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Indonesia
- Featured content: Tintin goes featured
- Traffic report: Syria, celebrities, and association football: oh my!
- Arbitration report: Workshop phase opens in Manning naming dispute ; Infoboxes case closes
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Insulin
Because there is such a large discrepancy between the actual experience of the individuals who use this insulin, and the research results reported, there is VERY good reason to suspect interference from Lilly, insurances, and governmental sources in the research that is reported. I'm not going to fight the whole establishment on this. I'm making a logical argument that does not require references here. I greatly mistrust these studies, and the fact that one can design a study to get this outcome, in no way obviates the experience of your average diabetic who might not want to go through an MD for this insulin - and doesn't have to in some countries.
It's an open forum. If you haven't personally used the product (and there are MD's who have if you need a credential), please don't edit my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.103.108 (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Merging Mental retardation into Intellectual disability
Hi, Doc James,
All the sources I have been consulting recently for edits to IQ classification and related articles strongly agree that terminology has changed, and what was formerly known as Mental retardation is now called Intellectual disability. The ICD 10 system of terminology appears to be the only one that hasn't fully made the switch, but the reliable secondary sources aren't waiting, and DSM-5 has made the switch. The National Library of Medicine medical subject heading has made the switch also. So I think that the two existing articles need to be merged. I have been reading up on the Wikipedia documentation about how to merge two articles with long edit histories, and that is not easy. I am willing to do all the work, but first of all I will gather the source citations to post to the talk pages of both articles. I hope you will look on as I do the work to make I sure merge the articles correctly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Doc James and WeijiBaikeBianji Intellectual disability is redirected to Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities, If OK I could move the content of Mental retardation to Intellectual disability and then redirect Mental retardation to Intellectual disability if that makes sense. dolfrog (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I promised to help fix the article, and I will gather sources for doing that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Doc James just came across X-linked mental retardation should this be changed as well by a move. dolfrog (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Are there any refs that use the term? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I did a quick PubMed search and I created this brief collection if you look at some of the review abstracts there are quite few additional reviews listed in the related research section on the right hand side using the term. dolfrog (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Are there any refs that use the term? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
Dear Doc, thank you for the things that you did to make Low back pain not so hard to read. You made it so that the words are short, and are well known to most who will read it. To show you that I can do it too, I wrote you this note with each word just one sound beat long! With this skill, my words from now on will avoid circumlocutious obfuscation. ...Darn it! and I was doing so well too...  Thanks Doc! Zad68 00:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Barnstar
|
The Medicine Barnstar | |
| For your medical article awesomeness! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
- Now fixed! Somehow I'm not sure why. Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Gonorrhea
Could you explain why you didn't like the new lead image I used in gonorrhea? I found the World War II image both sexist and dated, and I'd like to find a neutral, relevant image to replace it with. Other STI articles do have similar micrographs as their main images (see chlamydia and bacterial vaginosis). Do you have any suggestions? Kimeras (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Kimeras
- The page layout was not very good with that move. We are an encyclopedia, so having historical images in the lead is not necessarily a problem. Yes in World War two almost all soldiers were male. War sucks. One send young men half way around the world, exposes them to extreme mental stress and the risk of death, and it should not be surprising that their risk of STIs increase. Than governments produce posters to educate them. I do not consider it sexist but simply reality at that time. Feel free to ask for further input at WT:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doc,
Please respond to my comment at Talk:Neurofibromatosis#Wikipedia is not a directory.
I am looking to seriously beef up content on NF in Wikipedia, to highlight current research and standard of care. My best source currently is "Neurofibromatoses in Clinical Practice" by Ferner, Huson and Evans.
Part of this is to make available for NF sufferers a comprehensive list of organizations which do basic, translational or clinical research in NF, and clinics which treat NF. All of the organizations that I listed in the section you deleted qualified. Wikipedia is full of similar lists, I can point you to many.
File permission problem with File:Rt sided pneumoDWP.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rt sided pneumoDWP.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Computed_tomography_of_human_brain_-_large.png){kind=link}