User talk:Doc James/Archive 91

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Hi Doc James, Polsh version added in User:Doc James/Barnstar2015. Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 06:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Michał Sobkowski many thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you alot for your message and i leave a message in my talk page to you. Actually your efforts must be appreciated than any one because your huge number of edits in medical content. Full regards---مصعب (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and thank rest of the team Doc James, i work to share free knowledge. I want to help you and i need to your help but my English Language level is basic, i use to content translator while do translate. KediÇobanı --KediÇobanı🐈 10:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

[1], I would like to thank you for your kind action, however I find it difficult in this project to find someone more deserving than you Doc James, to give without self-interest, is a rare human quality. Logic dictates the future will hold many awards for you [2],yet you already have something only God can give.. Humanity. thank you truly--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

---

I would like to thank you ,for your kind move honouring me with The Cure award , this early morning. which I have never received an award like this in all my life. My thanks also applied to the team of Doc James, And this huge progect Wiki Project Med Foundation , Many thanks once again , and full regards. --نبيل عبدالقادر عبدالوهاب (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:مصعب, نبيل عبدالقادر عبدالوهاب, User:Ozzie10aaaa, and User:KediÇobanı it has been my great pleasure to have been part of this amazing team of individuals these last 9 years (the time I have been involved). And am looking forwards to continuing our amazing work. I believe strongly that what we all do really matters :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

What you said publicly

Hi Doc. Jimmy said "As an example, and I'm not going to dig up the exact quotes, you said publicly that you wrote to me in October that we were building a Google-competing search engine and that I more or less said that I'm fine with it."

I can't find where you said this publicly. Do you have any idea? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Peter Damian I know the personal emails. I asked him on Oct 6th 2015 if what was expressed in the KF grant application was what he believed we were doing. I provided him these quotes:

• "The foundation and its staff have a track record of success and a strong vision of what a search engine can do when it has the right principles, and the right people, firmly behind it."
• "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia will be the Internet’s first transparent search engine, and the first one originated by the Wikimedia Foundation."
• "the Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia, a system for discovery of reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet"
• "how is WMF going to build a unique search experience that will go beyond what Google and Bing are already providing their users?"

I concluded my email with "The plan appears to be for this search engine to go at www.wikipedia.org What else would you call what is being described? This is not a search tool for Wikimedia properties. It also appears to include Watson / Google graph type functionality" (should have clarified that to be "not a search tool for JUST Wikimedia properties")

JWs reply on Oct 7th was basically that that was exactly what we had approved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmy's claim is specifically that you publicly stated what you said in October. Where was it publicly stated? Did you ever use the term 'Google-competing search engine'? He claims you did. Peter Damian (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what he is referring to. I used the term "developing a search engine... in an effort to compete with Google" and I consider that concern supported by that statement "how is WMF going to build a unique search experience that will go beyond what Google and Bing are already providing their users?" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesnt look like the only possible interpretation (or even the most intuitive interpretation) of that phrase to me.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Where did you say "developing a search engine... in an effort to compete with Google"? Peter Damian (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That private email JW refers to Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I know that. My question is whether you mentioned this PUBLICLY. Sorry for the screaming capitals. Jimmy is upset that you made some public statement, but I can't locate the public statement. Peter Damian (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Peter Damian it might have been my comments "I guess first would be verify that we have a group of staff that want to work on a Google-like search engine. And as most of the project will be funded by general movement funds, a movement that supports paying for the rest of it." which was a theoretical reply to User:Wnt comment "The problem that this raises is -- if you have a group of developers who want to work on a Google-like search, and a nonprofit that wants to fund their salaries to work on it, then what exactly can the community or a good administrator add to that situation, except maybe some matchmaking services before prudently removing himself from the honeymoon suite?" I also said a bit lower "It however does appear to me that we are building a search engine"[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Aha. It seems it was Wnt then Jimmy who first mentioned the 'Google like search engine'. You replied that evidence was needed of such a thing. It seems as though he has turned it on its head. Peter Damian (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. If he has further diffs would be happy to look at them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure User:Maunus. And that one sentence was not taken in isolation. It was also based on the screen shots for the idea as seen here as well as a number of other documents.

Yes we all agree that the first 12 to 18 months of this 5-6 or more year project involved improving our internal search. And I agree I do not think anyone has a problem with spending a few million on improving our internal search.[4]

But this is than followed by the risks "third party influence or interference. Google, Yahoo or another big commercial search engine could suddenly devote resources to a similar project which could reduce the success of the project. This is the biggest challenge and an external one". Additionally talk was not of a few million but a conservative 32 M.

I do not see how these last bits could be true if the long term idea was just to improve internal search.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly I dont have the same familiarity with the entire issue as many others, but I know that I sometimes use google to find a pages on wikipedia because I know how terrible our own internal search function is. So in that sense I think it is a real concern that google could make wikipedias internal search engine redundant if they invest in it and wikimedia doesnt. I dont know what this kind of development costs, so I couldnt say whether 32 mio is an unreasonable price for developing a good internal search engine. It seems to me from the outside that the entire debacle could have been avoided with a big bucket of AGF all around.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way what do you mean by "it" in "if they invest in it"?

Yes Google is excellent for searching Wikipedia. I use it frequently to do so aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

By "it" I meant "a search function for wikipedia" (I can see why my sentence was ambiguous). If google decided to invest time and money in developing a specific algorithm for optimizing wikipedia searches through the google platform, I am sure it would be likely to be much better than anything wikimedia could develop for the same purpose. And as long as the current search function exists frankly I dont see why they wouldnt. The point is that I think the competition does exist as a wikipedia internal issue - which does not really require the to my mind absurd notion of wikimedia designing a general websearch engine to compete with google. But if I were wikimedia I would be worried about google usurping wikipedias own internal search function.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

And if Google optimized their search functioning for Wikipedia that would be amazing for us. While we may still want to improve internal search having Google search us better would not be harmful in the least. Might be something to collaborate with them on in fact. I still cannot grasp how if all we are doing is improving internal search, Google making their site more awesome is a problem? The only way it makes sense to me is if we had long term plans to do something more than improve internal search. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm that doesnt follow for me at all. I think it would clearly be harmful for wikipedias continued existence as an independent site if google were to usurp the search function. It would mean for example that readers would spend less time on wikipedias own platform which would mean they would not develop familiarity with our local infrastructure, and would be less likely to become contributors etc. It might essentially sever the reader community from the editor community. I can see good reasons why that would be a problem for wikipedia/wikimedia that do not require a theory about a conspiracy to secretly go commercial or anything like that. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No one that I am aware of has suggested that we "go commercial". There is no talk of Google usurping our search functionality. And there is some discussion of improving internal search which has been none controversial.

But as both you and I mentioned we both use Google to search Wikipedia and I do not see that as a big problem. And if Google searches us better I would see that as a plus. Many contributors, including me back in 2008, come to Wikipedia via a search engine.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Well what you apparently read as talk about building a search engine to compete with google, I read as "talk of [ a risk of] Google usurping our search functionality", and basically an argument made for prioritizing improving our internal search. Now, if someone says something ambiguous usually it is more conducive to communication to ask them what they meant and then believe what they say, than to assume they are hiding ulterior motives. But as admitted I am not the person who was involved in this issue, but am looking at it only from the outside and from third and fourth hand accounts. I assume you have your reasons for interpreting the statements the way you did. I just cant say I understand them. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The entire documents are interesting reading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is that Google reproduces Wikipedia content, as well as just providing links to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's licensing makes it entirely proper for Google to do that. In other words, if someone searches on Google and that leads them to read Wikipedia, then that's a good thing. But if someone searches on Google and gets everything they want there, so they never come to Wikipedia, that's a bad thing for Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree that Google may be skimming of some of our readers who are just looking for a superficial level of detail. We excel on providing in depth information and IMO we need to concentrate on improving on this strength. Our real competitors are other content producers like WebMD and UpToDate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I dont think the first scenario is entirely that simple, I think if google sends readers to wikipedia and they thejn spend time navigating wikipedia that is good. If google sends readers to wikipedia to read single articles without ever familiarizing themselves with the local infrastructure that is less good. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The learning curve for familiarizing oneself with the local Wikipedia infrastructure is indeed steep, but we can't fault or expect Google to help us with that. Wikipedia volunteers and the WMF have only themselves to blame for the steep learning curve. In my opinion efforts such as VisualEditor, even if it were to work flawlessly in its current design, barely put a dent in the learning curve. There are still elements of Wikipedia's local infrastructure with which I only have a superficial understanding; I'm still learning things about the infrastructure, but to me that's one of the things that makes this place interesting. wbm1058 (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is exactly my point, that it makes sense for wikimedia to work on that problem for example by improving the search functionality so that one doesnt have to learn the quirky way searches work here. By doing that I think the question of google doing better searches than us might be mitigated. My point is just that I can see it as a legitimate concern that our search functionality is not currently competitive compared with searching wikipedia from google.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

My overriding position was not so much the idea but the lack of community involvement and transparency around it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way I also use Google to search the NIH's 20 something different websites, WHOs website, and WebMDs family of sites. Our current internal search is better than that of those groups. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, most government websites have terrible search functions. I sometimes think it may be intentional.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

They are more content providers rather than search companies. And good search is fairly hard. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

page views, google

added break here and reset indenting Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog and Doc James: I've been following these discussions on losing readers to Google, but I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere. Since Google has been willing to give us special consideration in the past, has anyone asked them if they could do anything? I doubt they'd make major changes, but if we explained the problem they might still be willing to help, like maybe adding extra links to Wikipedia when they draw information from us. I can't know if they'd actually help, especially if it affected their profits, but it couldn't hurt to try. Sunrise (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sunrise I can't speak to that. Some fix like that might work. Heck we do have a board member who works at Google. I am however focused on bigger stuff - accountability of the board, rather than specific judgements about competitive "threats" and how to manage them....but James may know! Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Sunrise We have some exciting new data here which indicates that our pageviews are more or less flat or we have a slight decline. User:Tbayer (WMF) was this your work?

Some of the prior concern appear to have been due to a change in how we count page views. Now there has been a decrease in desktop readership but that is mostly made up by mobile so the same number of people are coming to our site.

It does mean we do need to make editor on mobile possible / easier. And it would be nice to see growing readership. But the sky is not falling :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Doc, I don't believe that linking to a userpage makes the ping work. Tbayer (WMF) - that will... Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think linking to a user page does? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did that analysis (mostly repeating the methodology from the Foundation's 2014 readership update; the trend analysis is based on a linear regression, nothing fancy). Happy to answer questions about it as time allows.

As James said, the sky is not falling with regard to our global pageviews. Wikipedia has not suddenly become insignificant on the web. That said, the ground is definitely shifting (e.g. desktop pageviews are clearly dropping, and I'm not sure how many editors realize that fewer and fewer of our readers read articles in the form we write them on our PCs and laptops). It's not irrational to develop a certain sense of urgency about this.

Regarding Knowledge Graph and similar features by other companies, the threat of disintermediation is of course real and has been recognized by the Foundation ever since Google first rolled this out in May 2012, almost four years ago (e.g. it was called out in the "Risks" section of the 2012/13 WMF annual plan, published soon afterwards). However, I have still seen no conclusive evidence tying it to a drop in pageviews. (A while ago Wikipediocracy claimed to have identified such an effect, generating a whole lot of media coverage in early 2014. This prompted the WMF Analytics team to check how the number of referrals from Google search had been developing. They had actually gone up during the timespan in question.) Many versions of the KG boxes contain a prominent backlink to Wikipedia. Others however don't, or (e.g. for many medical conditions, in the US) replace Wikipedia with another source entirely.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently read wikipedia on a smartphone for the first time. I was quite dismayed that I had to scroll through five screens of infobox "knowledge" before I got to the actual article. It did make me stop and think about the difference between information, data and knowledge. And to wonder about what the future is for an encyclopedia as the one I believe I am writing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes most of my efforts now go towards improving our leads. And we have looked at changing the layout of our infoboxes as seen on the article gout to try to address the shift to mobile. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Maunus: Yes, infoboxes are a good example for these challenges on mobile. The Android and iOS apps already address it by collapsing them into a "Quick facts" box (although there too there are ongoing discussions on how to optimize the presentation in connection with lead images, see e.g. phab:T126709). And at the developer summit in January, there was an entire session discussing various ideas for better supporting infoboxes in the software, which among other benefits might make it much easier to adapt their presentation on mobile web too.

In general, phab:T119252 might help too (enable editors on desktop to preview how the page will look on mobile web - there is already a gadget for that).

I have been thinking about offering a discussion session at Wikimania about this topic (what the trend towards mobile may imply for editors), together with others from the WMF Reading team. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise: BTW, out of curiosity since I happen to read it above: What does "Google has been willing to give us special consideration in the past" refer to? Obviously, Wikipedia - like many other successful websites - has benefited a lot from being highly ranked in many Google search results. But I have never seen evidence (as opposed to rumors and punditry) suggesting that this is a result of a deliberately preferential treatment. The only systematic studies that I'm aware of dispelled this theory:

• "High search engine rankings of Wikipedia articles found to be justified by quality" ("The data indicates that contrary to the assumption that Wikipedia articles show up too often in the search engines’ results, the search engines could even think of improving their results through providing more Wikipedia results in the top positions." These researchers also found that Yahoo included Wikipedia much more often in the top 10 results than Google.)
• "It's 'search engines favor user-generated encyclopedias', not 'Google favors Wikipedia'", see also followup

Would love to hear about other systematic research examining this question. BTW, the Foundation's Discovery team has recently set up a public dashboard showing how referrals from search engines have been developing as part of our total traffic.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tbayer (WMF): I don't know if "special consideration" is the right term, since I'm not thinking of the rumors about Google page ranks for Wikipedia generally. I seem to recall at least one case where they removed or changed the ranking for an individual page or category of pages at our request, possibly for BLP reasons, but I did some searches and couldn't find anything referring to this (only things like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Google_Project). Perhaps someone else will know what I'm talking about, or perhaps I'm just confusing this with something else. Sunrise (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

break

reset this to full section break as the section above was getting too long Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is getting messy, with several discussions....

Manaus and Trypto. The story I have put together from public statements, is that Lila, in consultation with at least some of the board, and some part of the WMF staff, did some serious planning toward building a Big Search Engine thing, that they did see as competing with Google, but only for people looking for certain kinds of content - namely knowledge. They apparently kicked around a $32M budget for this to be spent over several years. This was the "Knowledge Engine" in its grandest form. They wanted to connect up with many sources of noncommecial information both within WM properties like WikiVoyage, Commons etc along with external sources (e.g census data) via Wikidata, and present results not as some list of webpages like Google presents, , but a serious Knowledge Graph sort of thing if there was no article (this is the "creating articles on the fly" thing); it is not clear to me now, if they planned to eventually present the article-on-the-fly instead of a relevant WP article. But you can see how this would be powerful and cool. The page for this was meant to be wikipedia.org. If you have ever looked at that page (I never do), you see it has a search box right in the middle. That is where they wanted people to come to find "knowledge", and keep coming. And they wanted to do things like get that search box on kindle and other platforms, to draw people here and keep them here.

They wanted to do that to get eyeballs coming directly here and staying here, because eyeballs here = donations; some within the WMF views it as is literally helpless to compete for eyeballs in the face of the Knowledge Graph by Google and other repurposers.. A thing that a tech organization can do within the mission, is create a search engine for knowledge that leads you to content putatively unaffected by commercial interests (I say putative because i have seen nothing about managing promotional editing, and "noncommercial" was a big part of the pitch). So this was being done 1) to sustain the organization in the face of what it called an "existential challenge"; 2) to remain "relevant" as a tech-based organization; and 3) it does fit the mission. I am not sure if the folks at WMF who were planning this, planned to get revenue from this directly in some way (would they try to get Amazon to pay to put the wikipedia.org link on Kindle? I am not sure yet)

The first phase of that was always improving intra-WM/WP search, because it sucks and it is one thing that leads people to pop in and then pop out again. That is what Discovery is doing now.

Apparently this effort was siloed within WMF and some of the discontent over Lila among staff had to do that weirdness resulting from that. I understand that it was also siloed within the Board. As I understand it, some of James' efforts to understand all this and its effects on staff were upsetting to the other board members, and it was those efforts (I think they would say, it was not so much why he was doing it, but what he was doing) that led to his dismissal. From James perspective, his efforts to get transparency around all this stuff, both in the community and among WMF staff, were exactly why he was dismissed. And also, his perspective that the community should get input into whether money would go to the KE thing or tools to help us create more high quality content and get that content out there.

There is a sideshow about a trustee head of engineering on the WMF staff named Damon who was apparently internally shopping around a full blown search engine (not just noncommercial content, but kind of a Mozilla for search generally) in a real cloak and dagger way, but I think that didn't get far and is not the heart of this thing.

That's the big picture as I understand it. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC) (corrected Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)) (redact more per comments below, thanks Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC))

Thanks for that summary. It clarifies a lot. I particularly like how you explain how the clusterfuck could happen even with everyone acting in good faith. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

you are welcome. i tried to write that as neutrally as i could. and i am so glad that you found it useful; again it just what i understand and parts may be wrong. Also, in my view lots of bad faith things did happen there that i didn't call out, and even on the surface there are things that go against the WMF's values, like the siloing that appears to have occurred. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

One minor things Damon was staff (the head of engineering hired by Lila for a time) not a board member.[5]

Agree the search was only for "knowledge" / "non commercial" but neither one of those terms is well defined. And that the premise was that eyeballs = donations. I; however, disagree that we cannot compete but that is a another discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I hear that. corrected. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, where you talk about siloing, I have some questions about that. I understand that verb to mean, here, that the work project was assigned in such a way as to have a subset of WMF staff working on it, without involving other staff members. Am I correct about that? And, whereas I can understand that in terms of the WMF, I'm confused about saying that "it was also siloed within the Board". Does that mean that some Board members were deliberately left out of discussions? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant siloed as kept separate and secret. Yes both among WMF staff and at the board level. That is what I understand. Pretty much the only thing that Jimmy Wales said to me, that appeared to me to be a straight answer, when I had my dialogue with him, was this - he kept saying something like "we have no long term strategy" (which I did not take as straight) and when i asked him why there wasn't a strategy after Lila - an experienced tech CEO - had been here for two years, he said something like "the lack of a plan after all this time is a disappointment". My sense was that with all this secrecy folks lived themselves into a place that was unsustainable - and trapped - in the face of expectations for transparency and staff anger...and there was no longer term plan that they could announce. my sense is that this is the hole that folks like Jimmy are in. They keep digging deeper instead of climbing out. I ~think~ they went down that road, because that is how you operate in a tech company, and there was a really deep culture clash that the board failed to manage when they brought lila on. I am writing "sense" and "think" here, to signal i am less sure than I am of stuff where i said "I understand". Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I ask myself what motivation people would have to engage in such secrecy, and the answer that immediately comes to mind is that it has to do with "eyeballs = donations". I'm skeptical that donations are simply charitable and operational, and therefore "non commercial". Once money is involved, people start having non-transparent agendas. I say this as someone who spent many years working in the higher education industry, where administrators are adamant that universities are "non-profit", but when you see it from the inside, administrators judge faculty by the amount of money the faculty bring in. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm. I too worked in academia for a bunch of years and i totally hear you on that. And speculating yet further, the move to bring in a tech CEO and to accept acting like a tech company, with the secrecy that comes in the for-profit world, was due to a perception of "existential challenge" about donations. And ditto the influence of high-powered "shark" people from the for-profit sector on the board, who would apply what they know, and how they know to do things, to realizing the WMF mission (which is a topsy-turvy situation to me, kind of doomed without careful management) I see all that in one bucket, yes. Again some of this may be wrong, but this is the story I have been able to piece together. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Non-profit" hospitals, too. That's convenient when they do their tax returns. But would the "sisters of the poor" be raking in money the way most American hospital corporations do these days? wbm1058 (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a fascinating and insightful discussion. It fits in with an email I tried sending to the mailing list yesterday, but has not yet been posted. It is my belief that Jimbo and James are both accusing each of not telling the truth, although a full understanding of the facts may lead to the conclusion that neither are lying, even though they seem to be saying different things. Here’s my “email”:

I’d like to see the rhetoric surrounding the search engine discussions toned down.’’

Is it plausible that Jimbo, and others have noted the inadequacy of the search functionality within Wikipedia, and wondered if it could be improved? Not just yes, they’d be derelict in their duty if they did not.’’

Is it plausible that bright people, sitting around blue-skying improvements to search might get a little full of themselves and muse that, if done right, they might even challenge Google’s abilities? Been there, done that.’’

Is it understandable that a modest project, intended as investigatory, and thought to be a precursor to a larger project, might get a little ahead of themselves in terms of the long-term possibilities? Absolutely.’’

Is it understandable that a board member, reading some of the grandiose possibilities, might think it a good idea to be more transparent with the community?’’

Is it possible that another board member might discount some of the over-the-top language in the proposal, recognize this isn’t a plan for a delivered search engine, not even a plan for development of a search engine, but a plan to investigate some options which might have something to do with search, and think it is a bit premature to be engaging the community? Easy to understand.’’

When one board member describes a tusk, and the other a tail, one should not accuse either of lying when they each claim they are describing an elephant.’’

There are legitimate issues to discuss – whether the community should have the right to elect a board member, versus the right to elect a nominee, but let’s move on to real issues, and leave the rehashing of the “James said – Jimmie said” behind.’’ --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Sphilbrick. I agree completely that the bigger issue and the one we should address next is "whether the community should have the right to elect a board member, versus the right to elect a nominee". I would also include in that discussion "should Jimmy Wales stand for election" (we could still give him a pass on term limits). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sphilbrick I actually was of the mind to look for some commonality that would make it possible that there wasn't outright lying going on. But in light of the misrepresentation of unanimity that was given at the meeting of WMF staff in November, and in light of Jimmys' refusal to give me straight answers on his Talk page, I have come to the conclusion that there has been lying by commission and omission going on. In my view it is unproductive to try to get people to actually admit that - instead I have been focusing on trying to get forthright disclosure of what went on for the past year and a half (ignoring what people have said in the past). I agree with James that looking forward, we need to get trustees elected. Under FL law, you cannot remove an elected member except for cause. Currently board members can be removed for any reason, which leaves our elected reps vulnerable to what happened to James. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

We also have other directly contradictory statements. James said here that "The board approved the Knight Foundation grant. I supported its approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board." And Jimmy said here that there were absolutely no such threats. These kinds of contradictions are not resolve-able with the "different parts of the elephant" hypothesis. Believe me, I tried. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: "Jimmys' refusal to give me straight answers on his Talk page", it should be noted that several editors (myself among them) on that page are of the opinion that he did give you a straight answer, but you are not willing to accept it. That doesn't mean that we are right, but it should be noted that there are different opinions on this. Re: "These kinds of contradictions are not resolve-able with the "different parts of the elephant" hypothesis", they may be resolvable by the silo hypothesis. If someone told Doc James something when Jimbo was not present, that could account for some of the contradictions. Doc James, when you say "pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the board" was this pressure applied in front of the entire board? Was it clear or ambiguous? Was Jimbo there? Does any other board member collaborate this claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes Jimbo was their. And it was clear. I would imagine other board members would confirm this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Meningococcemia

Hi, Doc James. I already deleted it. It was wrong and was not substantiated by reference. Thanks for everything and greetings. --1mssg (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

list of synonyms in infobox medical condition?

Hi, Doc. I was looking at closing Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Request for comments: Should the infobox medical condition contain a list of synonyms? but noticed that your comment there doesn't seem to match the example you made at Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome. In your comment you wrote "My opinion. One or two really common ones in the first sentence. A couple of more in the infobox." But in Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome you actually moved all the synonyms to the infobox, though there were only two. So am I, and possibly others, misunderstanding your comment about one or two really common synonyms in the first sentence? And when you wrote "A couple of more in the infobox" should that include repeating the ones from the first sentence? In other words, if the first sentence is "Condition Alpha, also known as Condition Beta, ..." should the infobox read "Synonyms: Beta, Gamma, Delta" or just "Synonyms: Gamma, Delta"? --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

With "Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome" there is basically one common name and that is "Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome". The rest are not really used and thus I moved them to the infobox. Have clarified my comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

~

What exactly was unsourced on the stretta wiki? everything is sourced on the page. Thank you. -Sulman29

The Q was what is your relationship to the procedure in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Doc James, can you please elaborate on how the text does not follow the WP:MEDMOS? What is not supported in the passage? I am trying to get this issue resolved. Thank you. Sulman29 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Doc James are you there? Sulman29 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I did on your talk page and now waiting for you to answer my question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please check my page.Sulman29 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Doc James I am still waiting for a response, please take a look at my page to further discuss Sulman29 (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am also waiting for a response. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance chemotherapy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Maintenance chemotherapy. Since you had some involvement with the Maintenance chemotherapy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. RekishiEJ (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

About some proposals on WT:VA/E

Some proposals on WT:VA/E, e.g. proposals to add Animal Farm, history of Syria, history of Pakistan, history of Bangladesh, Sochi, agricultural subsidy, smartphone have been having no votes since about one month or more ago. If no one votes for or against them then in the near future they may be closed and tagged as no consensus, which is a pity. So please participate in the voting of the proposals mentioned above. Thanks!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks typically stick to health care related stuff. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikibirthday

Happy Wikibirthday!--Jondel (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jondel :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Warfarin - Vitamin K interaction graphic (edits)

Hello DocJames - Content in my recent edit included wording about 'therapeutic window'. This was done mainly to explain this term as it was included in the graphic. Hoping to retain that aspect if possible. Mangofast (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

K adjusted Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Great - Thanks. Mangofast (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

November 7 board minutes

You say here that 'The board approved the Knight Foundation grant. I supported its approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board. Assurances were provided that the Knight Foundation and Wikimedia Foundation were on the same page regarding the grant'. Your link at 'supported' is to the WMF Board minutes November 7-8, 2015. But I can't find any reference in the minutes to the motion to support. Where would that have been? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It's there, Peter Damian. "Knight Foundation Grant. Pursuant to the Gift Policy, the Board voted to approve a gift from the Knight Foundation after a motion by James seconded by Denny." Andreas JN466 16:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes thanks. 'Gift from the Knight Foundation' indeed. Peter Damian (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Automated" cell death

Hi, Doc James. In the article Meningitis speaking of apoptosis (automated cell death). Is it correct? I knew that as programmed cell death. If automated is OK, can you tell me any references? Thanks and regards.--1mssg (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to call it "programmed cell death". Have adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

• News and notes: Katherine Maher named interim head of WMF; Wales email re-sparks Heilman controversy; draft WMF strategy posted

• In the media: Wikipedian is break-out star of International Women's Day; dinosaur art; Wikipedia's new iOS app and its fight for market share

• Op-ed: A modest proposal for Wikimedia’s future

• Featured content: Five articles, four lists, a topic, and five images were promoted this week.

• Technology report: Wikimedia wikis will temporarily go into read-only mode on several occasions in the coming weeks

• WikiCup report: First round of the WikiCup finishes

• Blog: The new alchemy: turning online harassment into Wikipedia articles on women scientists

• Systemic bias: Revenge of "I can’t believe we didn’t have an article on ..."

• Traffic report: All business like show business

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Veganism

I hope you as a physician will consider looking at the evidence of the health benefits of a vegan diet and to encourage others to do so and to move in that direction. The evidence is in, and it is purely foolish to ignore it. Zedshort (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have seen some tentative evidence for a low meat / high vegetable and whole grain diet. Would not exactly say the "evidence is in" though nor classify that as a vegan diet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please consider watching this video, which did it for me: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/food-as-medicine

The leap in that direction was easy for me as I am convinced that we are closely related to the apes, hence they have something to teach us. For those offended by the idea of that relation, it might be a bit more difficult, but once they are on the diet and feel the immediate improvement to their health, they will be convinced. I'll never go completely vegan but will approach that goal asymptotically. Zedshort (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Closely related but not the same. Sourcing is WP:MEDRS for content on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying. I'm not suggesting anything but just asking your opinion on such a diet and the health benefits and whether or not you recommend it to your patients and colleagues. Zedshort (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am sure, that what you are asking here is 100% inappropriate within Wikipedia, as is using any page within Wikipedia to advocate for anything external to Wikipedia. Please read the talk page guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

And I am sure you know that there are no rules on WP only guidelines. Your pronouncement is ridiculous. If people were to adhere to your highly oppressive opinion, and it is just that, an opinion about how WP should progress, we would accomplish nothing here. If you have a solid case, please round up your favorite admins and send then to my talk page to bark at me. Zedshort (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zedshort: I think there are lots of good sources that state, unequivocally, that a vegan diet is "good for you". Here's one: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.short. If you search https://scholar.google.com for :"vegan diet" you'll find about 7200 references. You should be able to find plenty of support for the position to place your statement in the article. --Potguru (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes as it says "A vegetarian diet is associated with many health benefits". This however is just an association as stated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Puzzelederer and puzzelederer. If there is a very, strong association between a vegan like diet and health outcomes, then why not accept the truth that vegan diets are a good thing and to admonish people to pursue such diets? Zedshort (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

As above. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, now I am beginning to understand what you are. You are the local dog that chases people about barking at them for wearing hats. I looked at some of your "contributions" and am getting the distinct impression you are simply an abusive type that has little purpose than to run interference on the process. Well, I am sure you will do well here on WP as there is an infinite number of shadows to bark at. Have fun. You come across as someone who desperately needs to be ignored. Zedshort (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• FYI: Here's a recent meta-analysis published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition: Vegetarian, vegan diets and multiple health outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies. Andrew D. (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.", and also "Wikipedia is not for advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind." The evidence in favor of a well-balanced diet emphasizing fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains is strong. As far as I know, there is no convincing evidence that also eating an egg, a bit of cheese or an occasional piece of tuna, chicken or beef is bad for one's health. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There is some concern from a high meat diet but yes there are a lot of people who eat no meat because they cannot afford it and their health is poor. Diet is complicated stuff to study as ones diet is often associated with other stuff Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The health content of our Veganism article is not too bad. The suggested site, nutritionfacts.org, is dodgy - cherrypicked science for advocacy purposes shading into quackery (curcumin for skin cancer). Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

vape pen explosion / electronic cigarettes

After you moved the headings around again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=709735068&oldid=709734837

there is no place to put the IMPORTANT information that you removed from the vape article. The articles I provided were good so why did you remove them instead of improve them? As an ER doctor I'd think you'd want to promote the exploding vape issue, but instead you removed the whole section? http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2016/03/09/tobaccocontrol-2015-052626.abstract

Please place EXPLOSION as a major problem with vapes prominently on the page, as I had attempted to do.

• http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2016/03/09/tobaccocontrol-2015-052626.abstract
• http://www.wired.com/2016/02/exploding-e-cigs-and-vape-pens/
• http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29450686/colorado-smokers-have-been-burned-by-exploding-e
• http://info-electronic-cigarette.com/e-cigarette-explosions-an-in-depth-investigation/
• http://www.westword.com/news/vape-pen-explosion-gives-marcus-forzani-third-degree-burns-7653238

Electronic_cigarette --Potguru (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

After my last edit the content was still there[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry doctor, I'm still new... I thought the link above shows you removed it. SOrry... working on learning diffs... --Potguru (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Erythromycin and pyloric stenosis

Hi,

In reading about pyloric stenosis, I noticed the following information on a possible causative link in late pregnancy and infancy to erythromycin:

"Infants exposed to erythromycin are at increased risk for developing hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, especially when the drug is taken around two weeks of life and possibly in late pregnancy and through breastmilk in the first two weeks of life."

This conflicts with the statement on the erythromycin page that "Erythromycin also appears to be safe to use during pregnancy and breastfeeding." I copied the paragraph above into the erythromycin introduction. However, I'm not medically trained, so it would be good if you or another trained practitioner could evaluate both of the pieces of information above and determine what the appropriate statement is about erythromycin in pregnancy and infancy.

Thanks, Linac1 (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes thanks User:Linac1. Just applies to the first two weeks of breast feeding. Adjusted. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

References

"normally"

Please see OnTheMarket Wikipedia entry restored after 'abusive' messages. It's a UK Real Estate newsletter about one of their advertiser's Wikipedia article. The article had been written in one edit by an editor with 1 edit in his history. It suffered a 2 line basic vandalism which was then reverted. The punch line in the newsletter is:

"Like most Wikipedia entries about businesses OTM’s entry is normally a straightforward promotional description of its service; the text includes a brief history of the portal and a list of its six founding agents."

The article has been deleted. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes an ironic piece to say the least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Heads up.

Wikimedia received an email (OTRS 2016031410021737) from someone at the International Federation for Emergency Medicine looking for a collaboration. I didn’t view the proposal as suitable but thought you would have interest and suggested that the person directly contact you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Perfect thanks User:Sphilbrick please give them my email. I am happy to follow up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

request

Hi dr. James. Congradulation for beenig written about you in arabic wikipedia also here . Please check this redirect if it is correct or not. Regards--مصعب (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks مصعب :-) Yes that redirect looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

revert/Chiropractic Biophysics

has reverted twice , have warned editor [7] mine, [8] your edit...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Menstrual cycle

Hi there, I was just wondering why you removed content from the 'spending habits' section. I see that you have mentioned low quality source however when you edited the section on 1/3/16 you allowed it to remain. Was just curious as to what changed within that time. Thank you for the support you have given. BD441 (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

We should really be using secondary rather than primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that as long as I was not making interpretations from primary sources, only reporting results, then a primary source could be used.BD441 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It is best to stick with secondary sources.

The text in question was " Impairments of memory, concentration and motor coordination, changes in mood, specifically irritability and as well as impulsivity, are also seen to be present within the luteal phase."

The study design was "a survey of 443 females, aged 18–50, reporting their spending in the previous seven days and their menstrual-cycle phase, follicular, mid-cycle or luteal"

I do not see how that supports the text in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The paper I cited states 'Women report mood swings at this time (luteal phase), increased irritability and impulsivity, as well as impaired memory, concentration and motor co-ordination. It is therefore unsurprising that women in this study who were in the luteal phase reported some dysfunctional behaviour with money.'

Would it be acceptable to repost the first deleted statement? I will look for a secondary source to support the later statement. BD441 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This [9] is a primary source. We should be using secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. If there is no secondary source than IMO it is not sufficiently confirmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide me with an example of a secondary source so that I am what I should be using? Thank you BD441 (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a review here [10] but the journal is slightly controversial. There is also an evidence box at the top of the page here Talk:Menstrual_cycle Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

about female genital mutilation

Hello,

I'm the volunteer on Wikipedia Taiwan. We had translated FGM into Chinese. However, the countless dead link make me quite frustrated. Hope that you could do some replace or archieve.

Sincerly,

Koala0090 (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Where is the translation siting right now?

What version did you translate?

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay I see it [11]. What links are broken? User:SlimVirgin can hopefully help as she wrote the original. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. According to this tool, there are 13 dead links, many of them UNICEF and other UN bodies. I'll fix them over the next few days. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:SlimVirgin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for help, I'll fixed the Chinese version soon after you done. Koala0090 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

About Duration of Hepatitis B vaccine

Sorry for bothering you again, one of the members in our group discovered that the source didn't support the following sentence: "It is now believed that the hepatitis B vaccine provides indefinite protection." Moreover, she said that the description doesn't accord with her clinical experience. We hope to get some academic evidence. Koala0090 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Koala0090 I have only checked the beginning of the article ( in other words the first 4 paragraphs for correctness). We are only recommending people generally translate that part unless the article is marked full in the progress table. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

• News and notes: Wikipedia Zero: Orange mobile partnership in Africa ends; the evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia

• In the media: Wales at SXSW; lawsuit over Wikipedia PR editing

• Op-ed: Hard work needed to address Wikimedia’s leadership challenges

• Discussion report: Is an interim WMF executive director inherently notable?

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Technology report: Watchlists, watchlists, watchlists!

• Traffic report: Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #119: The Foundation and the departure of Lila Tretikov

• Blog: It “revolutionized the way German-speaking people inform themselves about the world”: Fifteen years of the German Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanitation articles

Hello. There seem to be duplicates of most categories in Category:Sanitation articles by quality. I think you were working on these. Would you care to take a look? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes not good with these templates. Right now it works so stopped fiddling with them more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hiya Doc

I'm familiar with citing sources, however in this case my search for quality journal sources comparing rectal administration to IV usage for harm reduction or just for safety in general wasn't forthcoming as for most researches or medical professionals it goes without saying, I figured since the previous statement had no source and seemed obvious that a route of administration that avoided puncturing the circulatory system would be equally so and gave a wider perspective to the total idea of what harm reduction can mean instead of "doing drugs as you currently do... but get better at it" the point that some massive reductions in risk can be made with minor changes in benefit, the exemplification of what responsible drug use is. Anyway, will http://harmreduction.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Safe-Injection-Slideshow-for-HRC-PART-2.ppt and the quote in it "Booty bumping, shafting, or rectal ingestion, relies on the many veins in the anal passage passing the drug into the blood stream quite rapidly. Some users find that trading off some of the 'rush' for fewer health risks is a good compromise. " The whole page is 56 on that if you need elaboration. I have a feeling it's going to be the closest thing to a "national organization" that I can find, and if for some reason you think it's questionable you'd err on the side of allowing it due to the non-controversial nature of my added statement. Thanks Wgfcrafty (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Ref is not terribly good. Says onset is less fast, not comparable.

There are lots of great reviews on harm reduction such as this one [12] User:Wgfcrafty Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have full journal access so I can't see the relevant section to the article, this might be a more fitting reference from the EU's "European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction":
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_101261_EN_emcdda-harm%20red-mon-ch15-web.pdf The Relevant sections:
"The study reports that drug users perceive the effects of ‘piko’ used in this way as comparable in intensity to injecting the same amount of the drug. Administered rectally, the onset is perceived as even more intense. Oral use in capsule form reduces the intolerably bitter taste of methamphetamine and, compared to intravenous administration, has an exiguous onset of effect."

as well as

"Injecting and transitions to or from other routes The majority of serious drug-related health harms arise from injecting. The shift towards other routes of administration observed in some countries is not incompatible with continuing levels of high risk. Many factors affect the preferred route of administration, for example the form and purity of a drug on the market (Bravo et al., 2003), or cultural attitudes and taboos about injecting. These can change.
The implications are that it is important to avoid complacency because trends suggest decreasing injecting. It does not mean that current, younger non-injectors will not inject in the future. Prevention of transitions to injecting, and encouragement of transitions to other routes among injectors should be a priority for those unwilling or unable to cease drug use altogether."

They're referencing the piko/methamphetamine being taken an oral capsule as comparable and rectal in the first example, though this is pretty much contrary to the point I'm making and studies I've seen comparing subjective effects to addiction potential, or increased reinforcement (where faster=perceived as more euphoric). The only point I'm trying to make is most relevant to the article and the subsection "responsible drug use" in that harm reduction has a larger spectrum than the example given, and the second quote hopefully is a good reference and demonstrates why such a distinction is important. I mean, even the actual article this subsection links to states "avoiding injection" as a example of harm reduction with no reference though it seems quite obvious. If this still isn't enough for my first edit, or if it is but you think the "style" can be improved or stated in a better way I'd be most appreciative if you'd suggest a way to get across the point that actually changing the ROA is another major step in harm reduction, especially regarding IV use, and if this reference is insufficient what type of information the reference should cover in order to make such a point.

I would like to thank you, I've received terse statements on reversed edits before with the inferred implication of "how dare you edit my precious article," where any will to improve anything goes out the window, your offer of assistance is most appreciated and I do think that this section and the article it links to can be elaborated on and more clearly stated. Wgfcrafty (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree the article needs work. That source looks good. Send you something. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Obesity

See recent edits at Red hair and my edit summaries. My guess is that this is a teenager uploading himself or friends. Each upload claims to be his own work but has other names as author, ie "umar hafiz" and "Big Balls". Doug Weller talk 09:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

See also: Glasses and Smile (image added by 164.39.77.75). I have seen this kind of selfie upload before (different person) and it took quite a lot of effort to repel them. There are quite a lot of articles where a selfie can be added! Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed them, but will need to check the file usage later. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Doug Weller and User:Johnuniq. Not sure of copyright on their recent additions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

E-Mail

Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Zell Faze (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

References

The reference I used was a book on female health, a wiki page on the size of microtubules, and a wiki book page on cell sizes. The math is standard conversions. If you do the math yourself you will also find the error. I a, going back to convert the values to volume to be more accurate, however this will still require the ovary to be 2.2-3.1ft on each side if it were symmetrical in shape, which it is not, requiring one side of the ovary to be greater than 2.2-3.1 ft. A meter is 3.28084 ft. One thing to consider is where did this I for,action that these reference's information from originally. What study or medical science data did it come from, or is it simply century old information being passed down as occurs from time to time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.129.247.172 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What size for the egg are you using? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This ref says 20 um [13]

A million is 100 by 100 by 100 cells So that is just 2 mm cubed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I was using a book I had cited and the page on Folliculogenesis here on Wikipedia. I understand that 100^3 is one million, but that does not equal 2mm. Perhaps you have mistaken micrometers (μM) for nanometers (nm). (20μm ∗ 1,000,000) = 20,000mm, which is 20m. 1μm is 1/1,000 of a millimeter(mm) and 1mm is 1/1,000 of a meter (m). μ Is located under Greek symbols incase you couldn't find it, it took a moment to find. (Crlinformative (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC))

20 um * 100 = 2000 um = 2 mm. So 100 cells in a row is 2mm you than multiple 100 cells by 100 cells by 100 cells. 2 mm by 2 mm by 2 mm

So yes if you want to line up 1 million cells is a row it is 20 m but they are in three dimensions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of volume V=4/3πr³, which lends the cell volume without surrounding follicle at ≈4.19μm, then multiplying by number of cells you will find a total ovary volume of ≈ 2,095mm per ovary or 2.095m (rounding during 4/3 and π causes the number to be slightly different than actual values) now if you reverse function the volume of a sphere or cylinder (neither of which is described in drawings as the true shape) you will find a radius of 0.794m and (0.667=r²h) respectively. If you want to write the volume of a cylinder another way (²√(0.667/h))=r For. My other calculations I had at some point included ³√total collaborative diameter. (Crlinformative (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC))

Volume is not "um" volume is "um^3". And when you convert "um^3" to "m^3" you do not simply divide by one million but by one million to the power of three. If you look here one million cm^3 equals one m^3.[14]. Difference is 100 fold with 100 fold to the power of three being one million.

Yes my math is rusty but it is not that rusty :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm here to correct my math error above. I used the incorrect value for the volume calculations. The volume using the above referenced cell measurement is ≈4.19mm. I will show the work with the math symbols: 4/3π(10μm)³≈ 4,188.79μm³ ; 4,188.79μm³ ÷ 1,000 = 4.18879mm³ ; 4.18879mm³∗ 500,000 = 2,094,395mm³ ; 2,094,395mm³ ÷ π ≈ 666,666.63407mm³ ; 666,666.63407mm³÷ 4/3 ≈ 499,999.97555mm³ ; ³√499,999.97555mm³ ≈ 79.37mm ; 79.39mm ÷1,000 = 0.07939m in radius. Also, you have to remember PEMDAS was a testing and teaching system devised around the 17th century and factual math goes in the order written with the exception of parenthesis and exponents,which become variables them selves, if you were to write it as a worded math problem.This is something you don't usually learn until later life or dealing with a lot of practical application earlier in life.

P.S. If you have an interest or curiosity of numerology I have a random story to go with those numbers right there, though it may not fit into typical numerology patterns. I don't know the subject. I would not advise informing numerologists, however, as the originating nation is heavily Christian and already knows that eggs are created, not born with. What references do we use in western medicine that aren't published containing the works of predominately american authors, and to test the validity of such authoring ask any American if you should trust the government released information or look at the warning label on a packet of "Sweet'n'low" sugar substitutes. (Crlinformative (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC))

Anti vandal tools

Hello Doc James. I'm a WMF product manager in the Collaboration team researching edit-review and anti-vandalism tools for a major project the Collaboration team is considering taking on in the coming year. I was speaking to Aaron Halfaker and asked him about the people who might provide the best insight into current tools and their limitations. Aaron suggested I get in touch with you.

Might you have some time to speak in the next week or so? I'm on San Francisco time; if you suggest a time that works for you and provide an email address, I can set something up. If you feel there are others whom I should speak with instead, please let me know.

Thanks very much. Yours JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:JMatazzoni (WMF) which tools are you interested in? I basically have a large watch list and look at large numbers of difs. User:Materialscientist is one of our great vandal fighters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doc, thanks for your note. At this stage, I'm surveying the whole scene, talking to people with connections to particular tools but also interested in those who are just active in these areas. I was just following up on Aaron's suggestion. But it looks like you have a lot on your plate consulting on scientific and medical issues; perhaps I should contact Materialscientist first. Thanks for the suggestion. JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Work on this bot [15] We have some trouble keeping it consistently up User talk:JMatazzoni (WMF)

I like the rollback (agf) button. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

ADHD

Hi, Doc James.

Could you take a look at this issue?

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Lyme disease

Hi Doc---I noticed you reverted two edits I made to the Lyme Disease page; you may not have noticed that I made these edits because the sentences were not substantiated by the references provided. It's important the information on WP be verifiable, and that we cite sources correctly. Thanks! 140.182.73.86 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It is verifiable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doc—cite sources is a pillar of Wikipedia; please be sure you're familiar with this. Can you provide a source that confirms the information? The source you continue to add does not contain this wording, or indeed anything like it. Also I note that you have deleted other content that users have added later. Please do not revert without good reason. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:200:7F00:6962:F4A4:F52C:B18F (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure happy to [16] and [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Menstrual cycle

Hi, regarding my section on 'mate choice.' I think removing the entire section is unfair as most of these sources are in fact from reliable places. Additionally some sections that you removed have already indeed been peer reviewed previously and checked so these bits definitely should not have been deleted. Most of these sources are from respectable journals. I can make changes if you make reasonable suggestions? Or perhaps suggest alternative papers to the ones I have? Additionally, primary sources can be used according to Wikipedia standards as long as only facts are stated, no interpretations were made using the primary sources I used. Which sources do you deem as unreliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BF2510 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

We should really be using secondary sources. Not small primary sources. You have used a mass of small primary sources. Please share the requirement fore secondary sources with you class. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Information action

As a doctor of medicine this information I am trying to enlighten people on is assumed to be important to you. Feel free to publish my findings to a medical journal. I have been informed that until such information is published Wikipedia does not care by another administrator and I do not personally have access or availability to publish my findings because I do not have a phd. Do the math for your self and you will find the same error in potentially century old information that I did. If you do not know how to do the some what complex math I am willing to help. Being a physician mathematics was probably quite some time ago for you in your post secondary education. I will post the math again for you of my working and expand it to include explanations of where each number comes from or represents.

User:Crlinformative not sure to what you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the editor doing the OR math on eggs in menstruation. Jytdog (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah I checked the numbers here [18] and they look fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary Sources

The wikipedia policy is that "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". Please do not erase edits simply because they do not coincide with your world view.Jdkag (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I remove content when it is poorly supported by references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You first erased my edit with the excuse that it was base on a primary source, even though many of the sources referenced by the article are primary sources, and now you claim that the content was poorly supported by the source, though it was a specific conclusion of the authors. My conclusion is that you are searching for reasons to prevent readers from seeing views that differ from yours.Jdkag (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

'Not a great journal'

Just out of curiosity, why? I didn't realise there was anything unreputable about it. Shiningroad (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Shiningroad The journal is "Advances in Autism". It does not appear to be pubmed indexed. It started in 2015. So does not have a reputation for high quality content as it is too new. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis

Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis Noted your edit that the NIOSH finding wasn't statistically significant. I was copying a bit of text over from another page Concussions_in_American_football, assuming it was properly cited. It wasn't. I have changed the text to note that the 1994 article by NIOSH stated it wasn't statistically significant. I also found a more new bit http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249912.php and added it to the ALS page. Apparently the NIOSH took a look again in 2012 and released updates. It's clear that ALS is being evaluated as a cause of early death in football players (or at least that is how the new media is reporting it), such as Kevin_Turner_(running_back) who died this month. Let me know your thoughts or update the page based upon your suggestions. If you want to move our discussion its ok with me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and added a discussion on Talk:Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis page. If you know someone else to add to drop by as well, that's great. I left a message on User:PaulWicks as well Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Perfect have replied on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi James, I reverted & changed the citation to AAN Journal. Also posted an update stating the same on the talk page. Please comment when you have time. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a primary source. Better to use review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with this! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

email about Wikiproject Med

Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Saintfevrier (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

• Interview: Exclusive: interview with interim ED Katherine Maher

• News and notes: Lila Tretikov a Young Global Leader; Wikipediocracy blog post sparks indefinite blocks

• In the media: Angolan file sharers cause trouble for Wikipedia Zero; the 3D printer edit war; a culture based on change and turmoil

• Traffic report: Be weary on the Ides of March

• Editorial: "God damn it, you've got to be kind."

• Featured content: Watch out! A slave trader, a live mascot and a crested serpent awaits!

• Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel article 3 case amended

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #120: Status of Wikimania 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Bitch"

Hi Dr James, can you take a look at this page: Residual ovary syndrome. I understand the reference is supposed to be to zoology, but I think the word "bitch" is unnecessary and perhaps sexist. Let me know what you think 182.255.99.214 (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks saw it and changed it to female dog. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources

So… all the primary sources are fine to exist on the psychology page, but suddenly they aren't on the anorexia page? Anticla rutila (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

We should be using secondary sources yes. They should likely be improved on the other pages they exist on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why that information shouldn't be added to the page. I read the WP:MEDHOW. However, I don't think the WP:MEDHOW applies. The findings I added isn't telling people to "Take medicines XYZ". Anticla rutila (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It is WP:MEDRS. Anorexia is a major medical condition. There are lots of high quality secondary sources. There is no reason to use small primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Anticla rutila (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding image captions in infoboxes

Hi Doc. MoS regarding image captions in infoboxes basically tells us we do not need to repeat the article title name in the image caption. The article name is right above the image. So if you read the box, it goes: Birth Control in pill form.

You have changed it back to: Birth Control Packet of Birth Control pills.

Image captions are supposed to be as succinct as possible. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"A package of birth control pills" is succinct. And it one removes the birth control bit it becomes difficult to understand IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doc. I am going by the infobox consensus MoS guideline for image captions which tells us not to repeat the obvious in infobox image captions. The article is about Birth control; the infobox is labeled Birth control at the top of the image. Repeating it a third time, the consensus MoS has decided is redundantly redundant.

Books with URLs do need accessdates.

My edit include tagging 7 dead links.

I will take care of the extra accessdates after the dev team figures out the issue with Checklinks. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that books need accessdates because they are static publications.

I also disagree with the change to the caption

We can discuss on the talk page there if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doc. URLs are never static. Think about it.

If you put an accessdate on a book without a URL the system will throw a soft error at you, because books without URLs are static. I do not add accessdates to books without URLs. No point. Plus the errors look ugly in the Referernces section. I remove more accessdates that I add for this very reason. I come across accessdate errors every day. In fact, I fixed (removed) two existing ones in Birth control before I added the others. They were improperly included (no URL to hang them on).

Books with URLs are not static citations. I have studied this. Trust me. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the dead links.

When the tool is working I guess one could.

There are no errors in the reference section as these are soft errors I imagine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Fake articles?

This really is quite alarming. Here. Disturbing if true. You know more about the medicine stuff than me. Peter Damian (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Will look after sleeping. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Mixing blood cancer and hematopoietic and lymphoid cancers

Attn: Talk:Tumors_of_the_hematopoietic_and_lymphoid_tissues#Mixing_blood_cancer_and_hematopoietic_and_lymphoid_cancers @User:Doc James. Thanks 182.255.99.214 (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Replied. Not sure what the suggested change is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yellow fever

Re this edit: The point about lack of YF in Asia being mysterious is well established. Maybe there is a less dramatic way to state it. The concern is that imported cases are now appearing there for the first time in recorded history (via air travel) and imported cases could spark an epidemic in an area of the world where no one (almost) is vaccinated. Not sure what you mean about "one "imported" case does not make it common". It's still a major concern, expressed by highly reputable source.(BTW there's now several cases imported now into China, one in Fujian province, which is in the predicted distribution of Aedes.) juanTamad (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there naturally spreading yellow fever? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In Angola, yes. No, in China and in other African countries , where they are reported as imported only as of now, but that is the concern of course, that it become indigenous, as Zika did in the Americas, which happened relatively unexpectedly and spread quickly. The news worth documenting is the alert, at this time. It's all in the promed post, recommended reading. juanTamad (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay so the disease as far as we know is not spreading in Asia. Yes this is a risk and we discuss it lower in the article.

Yellow fever regularly spreads in the countries listed here [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Support that the data does not support effectiveness

"Abdominal training, the Paula method, and Pilates have each been examined as adjuncts or alternatives to pelvic floor muscle training in several randomised trials, but the data do not support their effectiveness."

"The efficacy of yoga, Tai Chi, breathing exercises, postural training and general fitness training in treating stress urinary incontinence has not been examined in any randomised trials."

I'm new to editing. These are quotes from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPT DanDan (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome User:DPT DanDan :-) A lack of support is slightly different than disproved thus why I made the change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for the Clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPT DanDan (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Doc - I realize you're extremely busy, but I was hoping you would serve as one of the 5 primary coordinators for Project Accuracy (WPA) which will help us immensely in coordinating events with Project Med, and also in establishing members from your team to serve on WPA's editorial review (board?) (committee?) (team?). Please, please say yes! We will need at least 5 top medical editors to serve on the editorial review board, and would very much appreciate you overseeing that part in a collaborative effort with WPA. Pretty please? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Atsme will need to look at things more closely. Give me a few days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Doc, THANK YOU!! And please don't hesitate to ask any questions. A Skype call is not beyond reason, either. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Take the lead!

You will remember the Take the lead! contest which was held in January. You were one of the original prizewinners,and so was I. Since then I have heard nothing from Wikimedia UK, have you? I ask because I see that the three other prizewinners, TheBlinkster (talk), Nathan121212 (talk) and Harrias (talk), all received communications from WMUK around March 4th inviting them to submit an email address through which they could receive their prizes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes have received communication from WKUK and a gift certificate User:Cwmhiraeth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to your email

I don't think she is notable, as there are only 13 Google News results for her, and some of those are blogs/written by her. I searched around and couldn't find much else in terms of independent coverage. Everymorning (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

You saw these one User:Everymorning

• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23] page 14 and 15
• Discussed here [24]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Innovation

Ha! Gotta love this, right? [25] ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hum this bit is concerning "Not treating an ear infection (otitis media) can be dangerous, potentially leading to hearing impairments, and in certain extreme cases, can even have life-threatening complication" Ear infections do not typically need to be treated in the first 72 hours. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll probably get a better return on your investment with Rogaine. I hear stocks soared soon after Wikipedia went live and it's still climbing. They proudly admit that the stock market can get pretty hairy. But to think you can stick that contraption in your ear, shoot an image over the internet to your doctor on the other end examining you via a computer screen, well...it is kinda eerie. (sorry, the puns just happen) Makes you wonder what's coming down the pipeline next — maybe an internet version of a Pap or Prostate exam. Ewwww. C'mon, ya gotta laugh at some of this crazy stuff or we'll run out of tears crying over it. Ok, ok - invest in Rogaine and Systane because (1) the names rhyme, and (2) you'll be better able to visualize your next hair raising adventure. ^{PS: I sent you an email showing one angle of approach I dreamt up last night for academia. Atsme📞📧} 19:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

• News and notes: Trump/Wales 2016

• In the media: Saskatoon police delete Wikipedia content about police brutality

• WikiProject report: Why should the Devil have all the good music? An interview with WikiProject Christian music

• Traffic report: Donald v Daredevil

• Featured content: A slow, slow week

• Technology report: Browse Wikipedia in safety? Use Telnet!

• Recent research: "Employing Wikipedia for good not evil" in education; using eyetracking to find out how readers read articles

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #121: How April Fools went down

• Blog: Growing hashtags: Expanding outreach on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Morphine isolation.

Good evening,

I hope you will excuse my poor English, and that most of it remains somprehensible to you somehow.

As a recent contributor to wikipedia, I am still not used to the way the "edits" work exactly. But I noticed you changed my edit back to its original state. I could not think of a valid reason for such a decision, since it is common knowledge that Bernard Courtois first isolated morphine between 1802 (when he was first hired by Armand Séguin) and 1804, presenting his report alongside Séguin on December 24th, 1804. In april 1805, Sertürner published his own paper on the subject and gave the substance its name, introducing it as the first ever alkaloid (vegetal alkali, in the text). In 1806, Sertürner synthetized the first pure crystalline form (without the use of ammonia), as evidenced by a letter to Merck.

Also, Sertürner himself believed morphine had first been isolated by Charles Derosne in 1803 even before Séguin-Courtois in 1804 (cf. his article in Johann Trommsdorff's "Journal der Pharmacie", 1806, the same article in which he proposed the theory his "principium somniferum" was a vegetal alkali), although most chemists now believe he was wrong about this (their conclusions are based on the comparison of "sels de Drosne" versus morphine, done by Pierre Jean Robiquet in 1817, who found Drosne's salts were actually a mix of narcotine and morphine). This information can be found in the original papers as well as in the UN's international drug control program "Recommended methods for testing opium, morphine, and heroin". Also, please note "Courtois morphine" returns far more results than "Sertürner morphine" in any language. The only "Big" localized google version which gives more results for Sertürner ("Sertürner morphine" clocking at 25900 results, while "Courtois morphine" returns 23000) is the German, for obvious and legitimate reasons of national pride.

What I found in the edit tab was "Reverted good faith edits by ...". I am not fluent in English, as you can see, so I am not sure how to interpret this. Are you questioning my good faith on the matter?

Kind regards, A2M

As I stated in the edit summary and on your talk page a reference is needed for your edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't help but feel I have provided you with all the reference you need, at this point:

- by Friedrich Wilhelm Sertürner himself, "Journal der Pharmacie", Johann Trommsdorff, 1806

- by the UN, United Nations International Drug Control Program "Recommended methods for testing opium, morphine, and ::::heroin", The programme, 1998 (pages 103-106)

I could add some more, if you like:

- by contributors unknown to me, Wikipedia's article on Bernard Courtois, Wikipedia, Date unknown

- by Paul-Antoine Cap, Études biographiques pour servir à l'histoire des sciences, unknown editor, 1857

- by Friedrich Wilhem Sertürner, Annalen der Physik, Gilbert, 1817 (pages 12-13)(NB)

(NB)This is actually the first article where Sertürner gives morphine its name : he calls it "morphium", which will be ::::translated by Gay-Lussac into "morphine", the same year.

Should you need more/different reference, feel free to ask.

Kind regards,

A2M

This was your edit [26]. This ref [27] did not support it.

Wikipedia article are not suitable references. Please use recent review articles or textbooks that make the claim. Papers from the 1800s are not appropriate.

Can you provide a url for ""Recommended methods for testing opium, morphine"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

question

Hellow doctor james. Sorry for the second question but i want to improve medical content althogh i know your time is limited. Is my edit here correct. Does the main article for the preveous category is immune disorder? . If it is wrong please revert it and delete the redirect immune system disorders if its wrong. If its true then i am happy. Regards---مصعب (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

مصعب looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Bupropion page: You removed the info on a clinical trial suggesting abuse liability of bupropion

Dear Doc James, you removed the whole text describing the results of a clinical trial that suggests that bupropion DOES have abuse liability in a subset of patients. Why did you do this please? Also, you suggested a "secondary source". Please help: What do you consider a secondary source? I checked the bupropion page, and a lot of original research articles are given as references. Please advise. Thank you very much! Stoopormundi

Doc James is travelling now. First, sign your posts please. Second, just because there is badly sourced content on a page is no reason to add more. Please use reviews or statements by major medical/scientific authorities to source content about health - we look for high quality sourcing exactly because these things are important; the way we make sure the claims are solid is by their support in high quality sources. Many, many claims are made in lower quality sources that you don't find in higher quality sources - there is a reason for that. I hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI to unsigned poster, WP:MEDRS discusses what is and is not a secondary source. Secondary sources are strongly preferred for all medical articles on Wikipedia and you are not supposed to use primary sources to try to "debunk" secondary sources.--Beneficii (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes as mentioned please use a secondary source. If the subject is notable there should be one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia

Hi, Doc James.

If you please, can you take a look at this?

You checked the page several times after my first edition on 19 October 2015 Revision as of 19:26, 19 October 2015 (→‎Cause: Non-coeliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) may be an underlying cause of fibromyalgia symptoms. Source: Fibromyalgia and nutrition: what news? Clin Exp Rheumatol. Rossi et. al 2015 Jan-Feb;33(1 Suppl 88):S117-25.) and had not put any inconvenience, but a controversy has arisen.

As always, I trust your good judgment.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Travelling. Will take a look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This sentence is still there "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) may be an underlying cause of fibromyalgia symptoms but further research is needed" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

endocrine society

Is this, the Endocrine Society, one of those "national or international organizations" about which your notification spoke? http://www.endocrine.org/news-room/current-press-releases/some-sunscreen-ingredients-may-disrupt-sperm-cell-function Philologick (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a position statement but simply a press release regarding a primary research study.

A few criticisms of that trial. It states "Skakkebaek and his colleagues tested 29 of the 31 UV filters allowed in sunscreens in the U.S. or the European Union (EU) on live, healthy human sperm cells, from fresh semen samples obtained from several healthy donors. The sperm cells underwent testing in a buffer solution that resembled the conditions in female fallopian tubes."

This does not mean any of these UV filters are found in semen itself. Or in the follopian tubes. It sounds like they took semen and than took UV filters and mixed the two together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)