Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Crohn's disease

please review Crohn's disease, i have corrected definition, as Crohn's disease affects mouth extremely rare!

may I add to Chapters titles (like ==Differential Diagnosis ==)?

and may I reffer to those blogs entries, that have author, 10 references list and embedded pdf file?

thankU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadjel2 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the note. We do not use blogs and refs and we do not put references in the title but behind the sentence to which they apply. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback

Doc James, Thanks for following up on the WP:EL debate. The WT:MED is great source and I'm glad to know it is there to bring up issues with the community. Also thanks for the articles you sent me - I am looking forward to reading them! I'll be interested to hear what you think of the talks and their appropriateness for WP:EL. I will also be more aware and better take into consideration the usefulness of links (References, EL, etc.) to the Wikipedia community at large in my future edits.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangutans (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Codeine

Hi Jmh--please add an edit summary when you shift stuff around in discrete stages. I recognized your name, but as I'm sure you know there are some rollbackers working the Recent changes that are more trigger-happy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes sometimes something comes up and all I can do is hit save and go.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Nice to hear your advice. I am studying in the university of Hong Kong.

Actually i am expanding the information of the original article. As my essay is getting longer it will be very difficult to follow the flow wihtout some numbering.

I read more than 4 books for the contents that i am editing, trying to let the audience have a general understanding of the topic. The original article is not quoting any cites or review articles and from what i read i believe that some information is not correct and the flow is not logical enough to follow.

Let me finish it first and i will remove the numbering later on. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will.Ong (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Your message

You seem to have some axe to grind, sending me that message, which I didn't consider to be a form of flattery. If you have a point to make, please make it, rather than sending some general advice. If you don't like my format for references, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't require a specific format. The structured format I see most often is difficult to write and wastes a whole lot of computer memory. --Zeamays (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I add that the tool you mention was blocked by my security software as a suspect site. --Zeamays (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Hi! I am an interested reader on this topic, and was surprised that there wasn't more discussion of the following study, given its size and design, either here or elsewhere. It seems to find minimal long-term efficacy of stimulants. I saw that another anon user had mentioned it in his/her comments (that were very anti-medication), and that you asked appropriately for more info, the PMID, etc., so . . .

Molina BS, Hinshaw SP, Swanson JM (May 2009). "The MTA at 8 years: prospective follow-up of children treated for combined-type ADHD in a multisite study". Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (5): 484–500. PMID: 19318991 [1]

I don't have access to the article itself, so I don't know what the limitations of its conclusion are . . . seems like like it could be helpful for the article . . . thanks! 192.150.10.200 (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

K will take a look. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! 192.150.10.200 (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: Talk

I'm not sure the template to use to notify a user that I've replied to their message on my talk page (?).

This message is just to notify you that I've replied with a question to the comments which you left on my talk page.

If you could preferably respond to my question on my talk page, that would be appreciated. Editor182 (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, though I'm still having trouble understanding. When you say 'removing drug doses from article', what exactly are you referring to? Removing the information on FDA approved and recommended doses for various ailments? It doesn't sound right to me, so I'm not certain that is what you mean. If you like, you can reply here this time, and I'll check back. Incidentally, could you please tell me the text to use on another users talk page to notify them of a reply which you've left for them on your talk page? Thanks again. Editor182 (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Per "Do not include dose, titration or pricing information except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources, or necessary for the discussion in the article." [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough, it's definitely out of place for Wikipedians to be offering advice on dose titration and pricing information (unless either are well-sourced, as you said). I can't say I've come across this often enough to remember, though it would be something I too would remove. I tend to see much more often a trend of users attempting to sell their bias on their own experience with any drug, despite a lack of reliable sources, if any. On a related topic to this trend, I do think Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction has been blown way out of proportion. Virtually every MD, including psychiatrists, have never heard of such a thing, and there is no warning about it in any consumer information. When evaluating case reports of the recently medically acknowledged risk of ongoing sexual dysfunction in those taking finasteride (which has also been acknowledged by the manufacturer in consumer information leaflets), those who had a history of any mental ailments, including depression, were excluded from case reports. It's not even worth mentioning in the SSRI article (which it is) but let alone creating its own article. It would have been futile for me to dispute it. Anyway, no problem. Editor182 (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dysfunction well taking SSRIs is well described. Had not heard that it lasts after stopping... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Caffine withdrawl

Why did you remove the edits i made to caffeine withdrawal? They were pulled from other more modern research papers. The crap that is posted right now is really out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.203.93.8 (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You do realize it has a DSM definition of its own. And the tiny section here does no justice to the current research... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.203.93.8 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
One was an issue of references. Most of what you added didn't have any. Please use review articles. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Heading

I believe that having removed that post has decreased the learning that a medical student could achieve from that article.

Be less "protective" and more pragmatic.

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabaway (talk • contribs) 02:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


We are not specifically writing for medical students. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

More recent article.

There are literally hundreds.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210104002.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21744438 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21990211

There is not a single paper that shows Crohn's is an autoimmune disease. It needs to be changed to bacterial, or possible bacterial, anything but autoimmune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.180.114 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

More recent article.

What do you mean, I linked one from 2009, there are hundreds of 2011 also, if needed I can link them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.180.114 (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the suggestion, although if you had looked at the section, I didn't put the article/source in there, I just added detail from the article so it wasn't so biased. ;-) Burleigh2 (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You are completely wrong.

You now have a reference showing it is not an autoimmune disorder linked to a sentence where you say it's an autoimmune disorder.

If anyone ever gets the wrong medication for this you are responsible, I am also adding your name to our case against TNA-alpha mishaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.180.114 (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine overdose

Can you please take a look at the discussion, if I got this right, and proofread my edits on the article. 4 eyes see more then 2. 70.137.141.111 (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Will look. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Still too many primary sources everywhere in the articles. And too many conjectures WP:OR from in vitro and rat slices in the psychopharm articles. 70.137.134.38 (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

hi, could You please review my edit

Tennis_elbow#Prognosis - may i reffer to pdf file in such a way?Ljaic (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for cleaning up the Facet syndrome page

I started to use it to study for an assessment exam last week, and it was in such bad shape I ended up spending my whole evening researching this topic for the article instead of studying!  :-) The piece looks much better now. Jonah Winters (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

For the pregnancy picture, use the fully clothed one, as this is more appropriate for general audiences.

Rodents and people

In ref to yr recent deletion of murine studies from Interstitial cystitis from a causal theory section, just wondering if you are aware that the murine models are being used by researchers in this context? See PMID 20201838 (and more, see work by Theoharides in this area, and Buffington, who looks at links in feline models between stress and IC, eg PMID 16579769 ). Moroever, the link between stress, sensorry gating and hypervigilance is becoming more prominent in this field, eg PMID 20643444 . Thanks, Medic58 (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It is still very important to use review articles. These are not the exceptions for primary sources. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Not many review articles on theories of causation. If any. Medic58 (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


Here is two and there are others

  • Binder, I (2008 May). "[The complexity of chronic pelvic pain exemplified by the condition currently called interstitial cystitis. Part 1: Background and basic principles]". Aktuelle Urologie. 39 (3): 205–14. PMID 18478494. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Nickel, JC (2004 Mar). "Interstitial cystitis: a chronic pelvic pain syndrome". The Medical clinics of North America. 88 (2): 467–81, xii. PMID 15049588. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Both of those (dated) study abstracts are useless for mining material for the theories of causation. What can be gained from statements like "Recent basic and clinical research is unlocking some of the mystery surrounding this clinical syndrome."? Doc James, I really do think it's a very weak argument you are presenting (that one can only use review studies), especially in an area of medicine where there are only question marks, and where MEDRS specifically does not require it, just prefers it where possible. In fact, it's the very "recent basic and clinical research" that Jmh649 has removed from the article on the basis that IC is about people, not animals, which is prima facie wrong in any event. Of course, humans are animals too and most of modern medicine is based on animal research. I just don't see where you are coming from on this. The data that was removed is the theoretical underpinning of much of the research that is currently ongoing in this area. Medic58 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin D

The article made extensive use of direct quotations from the Institute of Medicine's 2011 report. As far as I can make out there have been an extensive series of edits to the layout and content of the vitamin D article, sometimes apparently replacing quotes from the IoM with other wording and keeping the IoM as the ref. There is no discussion (that I can find). I would like you to come to Talk:Vitamin D and give the rationale for those changes you have made. Overagainst (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Angst

Why did you remove the Emotion-template from the article without telling a reason? It is much more reasonable than the Kierkegaard-template. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I thought you would have removed the list at the bottom. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Did not notice the list at the top inserted by the IP. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy Picture

For the pregnancy picture, use the fully clothed one, as this is more appropriate for general audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acereiner (talk • contribs) 02:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Feel free to post your opinion at Talk:Pregnancy under the appropriate heading.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I assumed that the RfC template that I removed was the one that was closed last month. However, the current RfC appears to be a new one. And now it's going to Arbcom. I haven't taken part in the discussions, but looking back at the history there sure has been a lot of heat generated by this topic. Hohenloh + 13:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes that would be an understatement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin D article

Can you provide a review article that states otherwise from "there is little evidence for effects other than improving bone health" per discussion here [3]? All the sources I have see say evidence is poor for supplementation other than for bone health. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No. I agree with Rhombus. The IOM statement that "there is little evidence for effects of vitamin D other than improving bone health" can be easily disproven by citing counter-examples, such as experiments that showed vitamin D is necessary for macrophages to create anti-microbial enzymes. That says nothing about effective dosage or optimal blood ngm/mL, but it does prove that the IOM overly broad conclusion is false. Therefore, the article should state that "some authorities claim..." rather than implying with silence that the IOM conclusions are undisputed. Greensburger (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This "experiments that showed vitamin D is necessary for macrophages to create anti-microbial enzymes" is not a health effect. Health effects are lower rates of heart attacks, lower stroke risk, decrease fracture risk. Please find a review that shows hard end points.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've Missed You Too

Hey Doc:

Nice to hear from you - just been doing a TON of heavy duty trial work. Actually, to the point where I'm about to look for a new job. LOL. I will be back soon, winter is coming and I'll have more time.

Much appreciated your note, my friend. Hope all is well with you and yours.

Your fan: Cliff Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Whoops--good idea thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hojasmuertas (talk • contribs) 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This is in relation to which page sorry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjaynz (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks ```` 08:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Epilepsy

James, can you help User:FridaD with her edits to Epilepsy, rather than just revert them. Look at her sandbox. This appears to be a science class assignment for school. It would be great if you could retain as much as possible and she may need help locating better sources and polishing the text. I'm sure she'd be chuffed if a WikiDoc offered to help her :-) Cheers, Colin°Talk 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Am away for a bit. If you could help out. There are a bunch of school projects it appears.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Trigger Finger

I am asking if you could please check the 'Trigger Finger' article. There have been later edits done by an individual calling themselves "Swarovskizg".

I am presently suffering a hand injury that my doctor has diagnosed as trigger finger (even as I struggle to type this).

These new edits look odd, and I am just going back & finding the last person who appears to be an expert (& that is you)

Thanks!

Cabreet (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Addiction.

a friend has taken2mg for depression for 1 1/2 years since his wife's death. If he doesn't take it avery day he has a ringing in his ears., Also, hiis sexual behavior has become less. no arousness at all. Could he be addicted to the drug since he has taken 2mg for 1 1/2 years.?98.22.53.17 (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)bjh
This is for discussing the writing of Wikipedia. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello...

Hey... Thank you for teaching us how to edit Wikipedia articles... I think i'll enjoy helping others.... And the workshop was fun too.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikunj.mend (talk • contribs) 12:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ICD-10 codes and interwikis

Hi, I am trying to clean up some interwiki links and saw that the ICD-10 is not translated free worldwide. Would you be interested in joining a taskforce to check the soundness of en wiki articles as a translation basis? Also for DSM-iv which overlaps ICD-10. Jane (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Would be interested in hearing more details. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

citation bot dead

Can you, as an admin and professional, take a look at the doi citation bot. It comes with a notice "the user account" ... at toolserv "has been inactive, and the account has been cancelled". I believe the bot is essential to do cite pmid and cite doi. Try a cite doi and then "jump the queue". example:

Shulgin, A. T.; Sargent, T.; Naranjo, C. (1967). "The Chemistry and Psychopharmacology of Nutmeg and of Several Related Phenylisopropylamines" (pdf). Psychopharmacology Bulletin. 4 (3): 13. PMID 5615546.

does not complete any more. Clicking "jump queue" brings error message. 70.137.134.91 (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear that they are working on fixing it. As everything is done by volunteers I am not sure where it is at. Sorry --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Mason

Could you site the chapter title for this (below) source so we can trace content from the 2005 source to the 1994 source. Thanks. (olive (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)) Thanks but I'd need the title of the chapter so I can compare the content in the same chapter different edition, if that makes sense.(olive (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Mason, Paul (2005). The Maharishi : the biography of the man who gave transcendental meditation to the world (New ed. revised and updated. ed.). Lyndhurst: Evolution Publishing. pp. 254-255. ISBN 9780955036101. 

== New section ==

[1]

[2]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Circumcision

Hi Doc James,

There's a discussion regarding the relation of circumcision and HIV going on at the circumcision article. Since you've edited the article before, and have a medical background, I thought you might be interested. Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Blackworm has also edited the article Jayjg, perhaps you should invite him also? or are you just raising the flag for pro-circ support? Garycompugeek (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation research

J., I've started a thread about some newly added material which you had earlier deleted. Talk:Transcendental Meditation research#So & Orme-Johnson 2001/Shapiro & Walsh 2003 (See the prior thread as well.) I'm not sure if you had even intended to delete the material (as opposed to moving it), or what the exact basis was. If you have any thing to add to the discussion please stop by.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Valerenic acid

Could you please proofread my edits on this article, if I got it right? 70.137.141.40 (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin E

Jmh649, the Cochrane Collaboration is not just any citation, it's a particularly rigorous evidence-based literature review.

When I read a review article, they will usually give the results of a Cochrane review if available (and so do I).

OTOH, the conclusion of a Cochrane review isn't the same as a fact.

You can be confident of a positive Cochrane review, but a negative Cochrane review can be controversial.

Just because the Cochrane review comes to a negative conclusion, that doesn't mean there's no effect. It just means that the studies weren't powered well enough to meet Cochrane's standards. If a Cochrane review concludes that the evidence shows no value to mammograms, that doesn't mean there's no value to mammograms. It just means there's no high-quality evidence according to Cochrane's standards, and according to their method of analysis.

I agree with you that normally the name of the publication should not go in the body of the article. --Nbauman (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree and well aware of Cochrane's format. But one could say Nature, JAMA, and the BMJ are not just any journal and thus should be mentioned. I however just think we should plainly explain the best available evidence without mention of journal doing the publishing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Evidence has different levels of quality. A Cochrane review, or a review in the NEJM or JAMA, is more reliable than a review in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.
This becomes particularly significant when you have controversial material where people are digging up sources to support their favorite cure, as they do with Vitamin E.
You could say, "According to a high-quality evidence-based review," but that would be POV. Or you could say, "According to a Cochrane review," and that would make the point objectively.
I agree that we should maintain a consistent style generally, but I think it's justified to make an exception in order to indicate the reliability of the evidence, when there are conflicts between low-quality evidence and high-quality evidence.
Are there any WP guidelines on this? It seems to be permitted by WP:INTEXT. --Nbauman (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you!

Hi Jmh649!
Thanks your useful contribution in the article Glaucoma.--Watson system (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

External Link to BCAN on the Bladder Cancer Page

Please explain why you are deleting references to BCAN but allowing references to the American Bladder Cancer Society on the Bladder Cancer page.

I want to understand your logic.


rcb 14:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickbangs (talk • contribs)

Agree and removed it too. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I note a number of references to the same American Bladder Cancer Society on other pages besides Bladder Cancer. I assume that they should also be removed. True? Is that searchable by you and therefore removable or do I have to search them and recommend removal?

And what are the External Links governance rules? I looked but could not find rules and want to abide by them.


rcb 15:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickbangs (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:ELNO. Typically we link to DMOZ which specializes in ELs and keep the number here small. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Interview

Hi, I am a Wikipedian and researcher from Carnegie Mellon University, working with Professors Robert E. Kraut and Aniket Kittur. We’ve published many scholarly papers on Wikipedia and are partnering with the Wikimedia Foundation on several new projects.

I have been analyzing collaboration in Wikipedia, especially Collaborations of the Week/Month. My analysis of seven years of archival Wikipedia data shows that Collaborations of the Week/Month substantially increase the amount and nature of project members’ contributions, with long lasting effects. We would like to talk to Wikipedians to better understand the processes that that produce this behavior change.

We’ve identified you as a particularly good candidate to speak with because of your involvement with the WikiProject Medicine' Collaborations, which is one of those we’ve been investigating. It would really help us if you would be willing to have a short talk with us, less than 30 minutes of your time. We can talk via skype or instant messenger or other means if you’d prefer. Do you have time at any point during this week to chat? If so, please send an email to haiyiz@cs.cmu.edu or drop a line on my talk page.

Thanks! (This my personal website)Haiyizhu (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

note

An IP is removing sourced information at Hamza Yusuf. Can you protect the article please? Pass a Method talk 17:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Most Responsible Physician

When you're back from vacation, you might be interested in looking at Most Responsible Physician, a new article about the Canadian medical system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

trade name

because a trade name as defined by the US code of federal regulations is the name in which a company trades under. i.e. ABC, Inc. Viagra is not a trade name it is a brand name, and/or a trademark. Also, by federal law a trade name cannot be a registered trademark. Acutal trade names (i.e. company names) can only be registered at the state level. What I want to know is why the pharma industry misuses a term that is defined by US federal law?? Who told you that Viagra or other brand names for a drug is a trade name??? I am curious.

regards

bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.51.137 (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

They are brand names rather than trade names so if I said the latter I misspoke. Not a lawyer and not in the USA.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Krystexxa

You've mischaracterized the source (FDA) on your editing, and your revision of my edits is bullshit. Great work. Cookiehead (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We do not give the mechanism of action for the others and thus should not for this one. This sort of detail belongs on the medication page. Also when it comes to primary research only the "primary endpoint" is significant. And we do not typically use terms like "sufferers" and "patients" but rather "people with gout." Cheers. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi James, I followed an invitation to view an appeal from you on the wikimedia site. In your message you stated that 75% of physicians refer to Wikipedia in their work.

I am very interested in this and I was wondering where you got this piece of information. Honest curiosity, not nit-picking.

Keep up your good work.

Colin Prince159.33.10.155 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Discussed in this paper here [4]. The actually number is 50-70% thus the number in the post was a little off. Will try to fix it :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, interesting article! JMIR is a good resource. 159.33.10.155 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project

There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You said that warnings from government depts in the UK and China had found that SSRIS can cause Pathological lying and OCD related behaviors. I would be very interested in getting information on this as I suffered myself OCD related behavior whilst on SSRIS and have searched every where for information but cant find anything. Would be grateful if you could help me, thanks.77.96.106.119 (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Natasha

You would need to link to where I said this to refresh my memory. Thxs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Compulsive lying and ocd related behaviors. Im not sure how to link this bit to you but I can tell you it was under the SSRI page then moved to the view history page with. "needs ref" added to it, date 22 October 2011, I just wanted to know more about this as I cant find this information anywhere else, I would be grateful if you could help, Thanks. Natasha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.106.119 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay have found the edit in question. I removed the content regarding "lying" as no reference was provided. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes looks interesting definitely something that is needed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

epi studies

please give me a real email and I will send you the supporting documents you wish. Sincerely, Carl Weil, Director Wilderness Medicine Outfitters Fellow of the Academy of Wilderness Medicine 2477 co rd 132 Elizabeth , CO 80107 wildernessmedicine.com 303-688-5176 Those who hammer their swords into plow shears will plow for those who don't 

The way to happiness is easier when traveled with people one can trust

Carlweil (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis

Not a problem, I haven't run into anything that was too tricky to decipher. Canada Hky (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis

Looks like a lovely piece of work. If nobody has snapped up the review in a few days I might have a go. Don't be surprised if I add a few references to the UK Guideline, which I believe is quite sensible. JFW | T@lk 20:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, there's a lot a Greek ladies in medical terminology. Ana Stomosis, Ana Phylaxis, Ana Mnesis, Ana Bolic (she's Slav, not Greek)... LOL. JFW | T@lk 20:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thks... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • All articles related to the subject of Abortion:
  1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
  2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
  3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

  1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
  2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
  3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
  4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
  5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

ATLS

Hi, you reverted a change I made to the ATLS article, where I changed the term physician to the more general "medical doctors", to whom ATLS equally applies. The current wording is US/Canada-centric. For example, I'm a trauma surgeon who has practised in the UK and throughout Africa. In none of these countries would I be called or considered a "physician". Would you mind clarifying why you reverted this change from the more general, accurate term?

I appreciate your work.

Thank you.

Bob.seberg (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Road Safety in 10 countries". World Health Organization. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
  2. ^ Stern, Judith S. (2009). Obesity : a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. 123. ISBN 9781598841954. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_24&oldid=1141577969"