Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 136

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130←Archive 134Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138→Archive 140

Greg J. Marchand

Dear Doc James, this might be be one you might want to look a little more into. No editor is getting paid in this case, although some of his medical students should have been smarter than to use the same IP address from his office. This is the same guy who was the first person to ever be named "Surgeon of Excellence" from AAGL's Surgical Review Corporation, and he has invented some very well known techniques. I know JYTdog and the gang love to find a good COI and attack full force, but you are a physician that understands this guy's notability in medicine. People that aren't involved in medicine probably aren't as likely to have hear about this guy, whereas in surgery he is extremely well known. Yes, Guinness World records are kind of a flashy BS, but that shouldn't take away from this guy's real work in research and inventing. As you may have seen from the article, many medical universities in the US require his surgical techniques to be learned as "core competencies," as referenced Rutger's University publishes it on their library's webpage. Anyway, as a physician with special knowledge of notability in medicine I was hoping you could come to the rescue. I felt we laid out pretty clearly how he met WP:GNG by definition, but because of the sockpuppet madness we're going to get deleted now, and probably salted too. Interesting the you're an ER doctor because the next project he is publishing is an algorithm for ER docs who believe they may be diagnosing a heterotopic pregnancy. Would be great if there's anyway you could help. Thanks. Natalie238971 (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Natalie238971 "use the same IP address from his office"? So he is getting his student to write about him from his office? Who is the "we" in "I felt we laid out pretty clearly how he met". Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Doc James No, this was our idea entirely. Marchand has no idea about this. "We" is (are) the students in his office working on his current 5 research publications. We needed the office manager's help to get a CC0 copy of the picture but the article we did entirely on our own. Natalie238971 (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
It is best not to write about your teachers, employers, or yourself. Best to leave that to someone else.
This person is one of your group User:GuinnessFreak as is this User:Phoenix Mike22? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Doc James GuinnessFreak and Dmonda are in the group. Don't recognize the last name one (maybe?) Since it can't be salvaged would you mind just deleting the page so he won't find it. It's embarassing we couldn't even do this right.Natalie238971 (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
fwiw I do not buy this story. All these socks write pretty much exactly the same way and have made many misrepresentations. The several statements about him being things like a reckless morcellating idiot here) make no sense in that story. Everything these socks have done (including the OP here) makes sense in a story about someone willing to say just about anything if they think it will get them what they want. I am still betting on a single paid editor (he has a PR agent for pete's sake) but i have increasingly wondered if this is the subject himself. If (and it is very big "if") these are WP:MEAT med students, it is horrific that they would ever think that the original page was anything approaching a credible-in-the-real-world medical biography. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes I do not buy any of it either. None of these accounts are "new editors" so doubt it is the subject themselves. Have blocked this account as a sock of the rest. These also do not appear to be students. IMO it is the PR agent themselves or some firm the PR agent has hired. Likely the later. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I hazily recollect seeing an OTRS ticket on this issue, in the recent past but it was with some other agent.For now, agree that it's typical BS and clear-cut PR spam.On a side-note, the AFD would be well-served by a semi-protection but I guess that your'e involved after the !vote..... ~ Winged BladesGodric 18:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to butt into your conversation, but the thing that has bugged me all along about the article is the negative comment on morcellation. It seems to me that the negative comment has always been there since the first draft, and I have a suspicion that the page may actually be an attack page rather than promotional. First of all, there's a crude attempt to establish notability - primarily using the subject's own PR - but the actual point of it is to make the accusations about the subject's surgical procedures. I can't comment on the validity of the technique, but my conclusions are that perhaps someone is being paid or influenced to used Wikipedia for negative PR. Shritwod (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Likely the image copyright issue.[2][3]
User:Shritwod We do have companies that create attack articles and than request payment to make them "nice". This could be that.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

as I said, in my view the negative stuff is just bullshitting, just like the OP is likely to be. Bullshitting is speech intended to persuade, without regard for truth - it is different from actually lying. Liars care about the truth. Bullshitters don't care about the truth -- they just say whatever they think others want to hear, in order to get what they want. This is exactly what we have experienced with this article. The US president does this on a daily basis and did so well before he was elected. There are people who are just bullshitters. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

RE

Hi, first I'm here since 2008 just like you so I guess 'don't template the regulars' would apply, right? Second, Jüri Saarma is a reliable source for medical topics, hell, he was at times the vice-president of the International Association of Higher Nervous Activity and the president of the section of nervous activity of the World Psychiatric Association. Third, older sources may even be preferable in case of barbiturates as they are written by clinicists who actually used them in practise while now it is increasingly rare, though this point is disputable of course. Regards, Miacek (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A book from 1973 (more than 40 years ago) does not say anything about the current state of things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
First, 1980 is not 1973. Second, I highly doubt phenobarbital has changed its effect within the last 40 years or so or that the addiction liability has changed. Again, it's a drug that was often used back then so better data are actually from that period while now we at best have new anecdotal evidence on barbiturates.Miacek (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: Piriformis syndrome editing

Hi Doc, regarding the process to find "good" references, I thought this had been accomplished, i.e, - the article had a PMID (=20552082) - the article was published by a medical journal (= The Korean Journal of Pain) - the article was promoted at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, PubMed.gov

Is the point, then, NOT TO USE any of these sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStonehunter (talk • contribs) 14:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a case report User:TomStonehunter. The request was to use a review article or other high quality secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Top editors 2017

Hi! About that top editor list for 2017, that you hired me to do :) Do I have to count only Wikipedias or all projects? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Edgars2007. We have data for EN WP now here User:Yair rand/TopMed 2017. But do want data for all languages of Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
So the answer is not to count wikisource, wikivoyage etc. projects - OK. I did put some documentation (for next years) here. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Updated also the one for enwiki (it hadn't full data). Some notes. "Bots removed" - if some word in username began or ended with 'bot' (any case), I removed it. Should be fine. Main wiki - simply the wiki with most medicine-related edits in 2017. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Edgars2007 this is excellent. How did you calculate the results?
By the way do you have the number of medical articles in each language on Dec 31st 2017? Here we have the results for Mar 2017. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Stats/Number_of_articles_by_language_2017Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Method.
About medical articles on 2017-12-31. Theoretically possible, but in a very, very, very hacky way. But I can produce list based on 2018-04-25. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks User:Edgars2007 that would be great.
I wonder if the code is in Dexbot's folder on Toolforge aswell? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Number of articles by language 2018. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Change in number of references supporting medical content from 2009 to 2015.[1]

User:Edgars2007 wondering about calculating the number of references supporting medical at the end of 2016 and the end of 2017? This is basically adding all instances of "<ref name=" and "<ref>" that exists in an article as of Dec 31st. Do this for all EN articles and than all non EN medical articles and sum the totals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Not very hard to do, but resource-consuming - oh yes... Probably can take this in next weekend :) P.S. Just dumping link, ignore :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Fake edit, so this section doesn't go to archive. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Finally... results. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Perfect. Update the graph in question :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you!

You rock, jock! ThunderHenry (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Electronic cigarettes article & off topic edits: advice please

I see you made some changes to this article recently. Thank you. I do not know who added the information about a "corresponding decline in female ecig use" (a line you removed) but I did add the next portion (which you also removed as I believe "off topic"). When I saw the former inclusion of decline rates specifically for women, I felt other information on that subset should be mentioned; there is a larger overall picture and in the US at least, all tobacco products are lumped in one category. Here is my off topic edit you removed:

A new concern found in 2017 was the rise in tobacco cigarette smoking of pregnant women, primarily also suffering from depression.[1][unreliable medical source?]

I think the topic of this article from the offices of an expect in the field is important for people to be cognizant of... where might you place this information I have yet to see included on WP? What additional information would you add to that discussion wherever it may land? Mrphilip (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Smoking Is on the Rise Among Pregnant Women With Depression | Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health". www.mailman.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2018-05-02.
The key is to follow WP:MEDRS. That source is not.
I have listed concersn here. Best to keep it in one spot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Convulsion

Please take a look at edits since your last one at Convulsion. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of work User:Anna Frodesiak. Have adjusted some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability

of Sat Bir Singh Khalsa.What do you think?! Part of a walled garden around Yogi Bhajan.....~ Winged BladesGodric 08:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not seeing sufficient sources to support notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks:) Will be dispatching to AfD. ~ Winged BladesGodric 13:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Credits

I notice you edited Measles.webm to include "Please attribute by retaining the initial logo and closing credits". Making a request like this is fine, as CC BY-SA 4.0 says "in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information."

However the new FAQ here by Kyle Slinn of Osmosis, says "we require that ....". If you still have any goodwill with Osmosis, can I ask you strongly encourage this be changed to "we request that ....". They can find the legal code of CC BY-SA 4.0 here. They are not allowed to make additional "requirements" and the title/credit sections could not be used if someone reused a frame of the video, or a short clip from the video. For example, are all the frames you uploaded from measles now failing in their attribution "requirement"? If instead, you feel Osmosis are now hostile to free licence media, and may take legal action against anyone trimming the front and back of their video, then it may be that a deletion discussion is required on Commons. -- Colin°Talk 16:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration with them ended a while ago. No ongoing discussions.
Has adjusted the "permission" on Commons per your suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I thought the original text on Commons was ok. "please" is merely a request, not a requirement. The problem is whether they will take action on anyone trimming the front/back of their videos. -- Colin°Talk 16:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
As argued on WT:MED that requirement was not included when they uploaded the videos. So well they can request that people follow their new requirements I do not think they can retroactively enforce these new requirements. I personally will comply with their request as I consider it the right thing to do. The question however is really a mute one for EN WP as consensus is against including the videos here and that appears unlikely to change. Supposedly Adobe is working on software that will automatically convert scripts and slides into video which would makes these types of videos easy to collaboratively edit / create. So until then... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Wrt "scripts and slides into videos". I return to the fundamentals of Wikipedia and Commons. The former is a collaborative editing project, where any user (including IPs) may work together to make changes to text only, and where the online platform makes it trivial to handle legal issues like attribution and modification history. It values instability, where articles are in constant flux, where editors do not own content. The latter is not a collaborative editing project at all, merely a repository for media files. It values stability and disallows modifications to files other than the most trivial and uncontroversial. The need to constantly fork to make any significant change means there is no concept of a current version, merely numerous possible files all equally valid. Should someone publish a video that contains disputed information that is not sourced reliably, there is absolutely no mechanism for you to remove it from Commons. Nor are you permitted to fix the video. Users at Commons very much do own the content and only logged-in users are permitted to upload content. Content on Commons which has been produced by collaborative strangers is virtual unheard of.
I would encourage you that if you think educational videos are a concept worth pushing, that you talk to WMF about establishing a project that permits the collaborative creation and improvement of such media. -- Colin°Talk 14:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Colin, I think what you said is either misunderstood by me, or incorrect. "Produc[tion] by collaborative strangers" is at the heart of free content and in fact remixing is explicitly allowed by the license(s). If this were not so, we could not retouch, crop, adjust or annotate still images, or compose images like this one. Video is not a special case. Commons is a collaborative editing project. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Antibiotic resistance

“Resistance to certain antibiotics is developing among some organisms such as gonorrhea.”

Such as... Is gonorrhea not the only one, or significant one? deisenbe (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Gonorrhea is a significant one, but of course not the only one. Why do you ask? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Gallstones

Hi I realize you changed the lead on the gallstone page, whereby you changed complications from "choledocholithiasis" to "damage of the liver." I've seen way more cases of choledocholithiasis than actual damage to the liver. As my edit summary noted, the rise in LFTs do not represent actual damage to the liver, which would be termed "hepatitis". If you look at causes of actual hepatitis, gallstones is usually not mentioned as a cause of hepatitis. Princeton wu (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Princeton wu Ref says "Complications include inflammation, or swelling, of the gallbladder and severe damage or infection of the gallbladder, bile ducts, or liver." [4]
How do you propose we summarize that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Looking at further references and agree that direct liver problems are less common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Borderline Personality Disorder

I don't believe that your use of "original research" is consistent with how Wikipedia uses the term in this context. I also don't believe that information posted on a mailing list is intrinsically unreliable; it's just the medium. The *source* is the author. I have requested dispute resolution in this matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Borderline_personality_disorder . BunsenH (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure but please see WP:RS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikibooks - First Aid Manual..

I appreciate that you are very busy contributor, as well as being in active medical practice, however your expertise in improving and keeping Wikibooks:First_Aid current and accurate would be welcome..

There also some notes I left on the talk page for the above.

I also note that at some point I'd written a stub at wikibooks:First_Aid/Mental_Health_Emergency, given that I felt it was something that should be included, but ideally it should be re-drafted by someone that has current psychiatric care expertise . ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Causes of seizures

There appears to be a lack of any mention of "Fixation" causes in this article, despite them being noted here wikibooks: First_Aid/Epilepsy?

I don't feel able to add a suitable note to the article, and hence would like to defer to a suitable expert. Any suggestions?ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

Refers to this it appear.[5] Added a ref to Wikibooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, but the relevant section at Wikibooks may need to rewritten more estensively, on a second look. The fixation cause intended I think was to relate to 'pattern' triggers, Optical illusion ('wavy line') patterns, and Moiré patterns come to mind in context (Given that despite there being no actual strobe the relevant pattern appears to strobe or be animated). However, I am wondering if by 'fixation', what was actually meant was a 'pattern' trigger. I'm clearly not someone that deals with Epilepsy, hence my desire for an expert view. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure what the original author over at Wikibooks was getting at either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, the wikibooks article should probably mention 'pattern' triggers though, as they are related to Photo-sensitivity as I understand it. Do you know a user that knows more about this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Shared account for medical course?

You might want to look into User:Neuroepigenetics's edit history. There appears to be a connection to Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/The University of Texas at Austin/Epigenetics (Spring 2018). ☆ Bri (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

On second look, I think the students were confused and were editing a user page rather than Neuroepigenetics. Still, might want to check it out. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Hum. I guess the question is what do they plan to do with their draft in the end? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Neuropathic pain

An anon changed that opioids "are not used" to "are used". Seems odd, but the source seems to pan out. Thought you might want to look. diff Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jim1138 replaced the old primary source with more recent review articles on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Research Enquiry.

Unusual question (and medical disclaimer noted). Are there any documented journal entries concerning seziures in relation to exposure to auditory stimuli such as a focused tone, warble or 'hum' including sounds just outside normal hearing range?

I'll also look at the Tinnitus article..


ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ShakespeareFan00 here you are https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22612325 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
And added at the end of the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_seizures&oldid=841567505. Ideally someone that's more of an expert might want to expand or stub an article on the topic. Thanks again. I hope the reference was formatted correctly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

congo

seems to have gotten more serious[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thankfully we appear to have a vaccine. But yes concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

COI on Obstetric fistula

Hi - my entry about the Catherine Hamlin Foundation was for a school project. I have no connection to the organization whatsoever. Does this clear up the conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nd111 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks User:Nd111 next you need to use independent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I want to help

I just retired from my work at the Minister of Health. I am a Chemical Engineer and I have a master degree in Public Health. I have some free time and I want to help to translate articles about this subject.

Xinia Arias xariasq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xariasq (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Xariasq great. I assume you are interested in translating into Spanish? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Need some help

I was having a discussion with User:David Gerard on secondary sources for an article. He thought the sources I provided were insufficient (which is a valid viewpoint), but instead of advancing the discussion to a normal procedure like 3O or AfD, he’s started accusing me of paid fringe advocacy in multiple venues. Could you please help me reassure him that I’m editing in good faith? Thanks. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 09:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes sure User:Antony-22. There are no concerns of paid fringe advocacy. Will look in more details as I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry to bother you about this. I thought this was just a vanilla discussion about sources under my volunteer account, but there was apparently some misunderstanding and things got out of hand. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Cerebral palsy Article

I was trying to mitigate what I saw as excessive abbreviation by referring to cerebral palsy by its proper title. Also, since many articles of this nature are academic in tone and appear to be written from the perspective of a medical professional, I was merely falling into line.

As a matter of full disclosure, I was only about halfway through with the article; the syntax still needs work.

Tyrekecorrea (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay. WP:MEDMOS is a useful overview of style for medical articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Dental fear

This one has been reworked by a few newbies. I sort of pointed out problems on two of the editor's talk pages, but got no response. It sort of seems to be a how-to now. Dental fear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Outside of your expertise? :O) Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 what a lot of work needed on that one... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your time! It appears that @Diannaa: spent a lot of time too. Thank you Diannaa! Jim1138 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dentistry. Hopefully they can help straighten it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Or at least put braces on it. (Sorry, bad joke.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Just curious

I'm not in the least contesting this revert, but I had a couple of CUs check and there's no socking. Guess I'm just wondering about your edit summary. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

User:Primefac a checkuser is not perfect and many professional paid editors edit such that they are not detectable. So no "detectable socking" with our poor quality sock detection tools rather than "no socking"
We know this company has been at this a long time per Wikipedia:PAIDLIST
This is false[7] if you look at the edits that follow
So yes I feel comfortable applying G5 even without a CU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Correction + help needed

Hello Doc James, I'm Doug Rand, co-founder of Boundless Immigration Inc., a company that helps families navigate the immigration system.

I have two items I wanted to bring to your attention:

1) Last November, you edited the article Boundless_(company), which refers to a now-defunct company that distributed textbooks online. Our company recently purchased the defunct company's domain name (boundless.com), and I was going to ask if you might be able to remove the "official website" link, since it was taking visitors to our site...but it looks like someone else happened to fix this yesterday!

2) I wrote a draft article about our company that was rejected earlier this year, on notability grounds. I've studied the Wikipedia notability standards carefully, and believe that Boundless has received "significant coverage" sufficient to meet these standards. I would truly appreciate it if you had the time to review my analysis and let me know what you think. The discussion can be found in archive 752 of The Teahouse [[8]], which is where I was hoping to get feedback a couple of months ago. I'm trying to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia so that I can make solid contributions now and down the road (not just where I have a stated conflict), so I'd look forward to your guidance! Messier6 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Messier6. Here's a comment, not from Doc James, but from a talk page watcher. I have posted details of my comment over at User talk:Messier6 so as not to use up space here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
User:EdJohnston's feedback is excellent. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Young blood, fresh blood.

Thank you for your work on the young blood article. I feel that you’re trying to improve the article rather than just tear bits out of it. Your recent additions add to the content nicely. violet/riga [talk] 02:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

About a medical library

Hello M. Heilman, just to inform you that a call for tenders for a "medical library" will be launched in Quebec next month. This true encyclopedia will give scientific and validated information on diseases, symptoms, treatments, prevention, convalescence periods, etc. Its content could thus be used to validate that of Wikipedia. I will try to keep you informed if you are interested in learning more as soon as I have more information. Regards. Stefanos Stefanos (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Stefanos Stefanos thanks for the heads up. Going to be in French or English?
By "medical library" does this refer to a collection of medical textbooks? Or an encyclopedia? Will it be under an open license? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
From what I know for the moment, it seems that this is a project that will be implemented by the Quebec Ministry of Health. It would be part of a reform allowing, among other things, users who wish to register to have access to their medical records. It is not specified in the press release whether this "medical librairy" refers to a collection of medical textbooks or an encyclopedia or whether its content will be under open license.
On ctvnews.ca it is simply reported that: "The app, which cost $11 million to develop, will also feature a medical library, allowing users to get information on medications, as well as a list of all of a patient's prescriptions for the previous five years." Cf. while the French version of the press release on Radio-Canada states: "In June, Québec will launch a call for tenders for the "bibliothèque médicale". This true encyclopedia will provide scientific and validated information on diseases, symptoms, treatments, prevention, convalescence periods, etc." Cf. I hope that the informations will be available in both English and French. The project should probably become clearer in the coming weeks. Stefanos Stefanos (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Hum. We launched this bit a few months ago in BC "The Quebec Health Record will initially include information such as the results of blood and urine tests, medical imaging reports and the list of prescribed medications"
I do see that it also mentions a "real encyclopedia". It will be interesting to see what they mean by that. They have put out a "call for tenders". Maybe we could submit Wikipedia :-) I imagine folks like ADAM which the NIH buys a license for will apply https://medlineplus.gov/encyclopedia.html
I doubt anyone will build one from scratch. Have you seen the call for tendor User:Stefanos Stefanos? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately not yet. I only read this information yesterday; someone had sent me the link by email. Moreover, I agree with you: I too doubt that this encyclopedia will built from scratch. Some of Wp:en's articles - and probably even several - would be sufficiently complete and error-free to be accepted (especially since your intervention) but as it is a project linked to the Ministry of Health, policy makers will probably prefer to go with more "official" sources like the one you are quoting.
I wonder if a similar medical encyclopedia project linked to a medical record project for citizens has already been in another Canadian province or in the USA or elsewhere in Europe? If this project is successful, I also wonder if it will not be possible to extend it to an educational project in the medical field, perhaps in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation? Stefanos Stefanos (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yah I imagine they will be buying something off the self. UpToDate has patient handouts as well as a version geared at professionals. This group pulls in 2 billion dollars a year for their medical encyclopedia.
From what I see, with this cash inflow, UpToDate can afford to make its product available free of charge in certain humanitarian circumstances (New Zealand, Haiti in 2010, Nepal in 2015...).
I am sure they will be applying as well. Neither UpToDate nor ADAM are not under an open license, so unlikely that what the Quebec government buys will be either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Paying for content is one thing, paying for computer problems that never end is another, as Quebec has been doing for several years, including the famous electronic medical record. Personally, this is the first time I have heard of a call for tenders for a medical encyclopedia, although the marketing of this type of data has probably been going on for some time. I am curious to see, among other things, if hyperlinks will be present in people's medical files to directly access articles in this famous "encyclopedia" and especially to see if bugs will be corrected quickly... Stefanos Stefanos (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not found any other examples of government implementing a call for tenders for the creation of a medical encyclopedia for its citizens, however the case of Estonia is worth communicating knowing that it is the first country to use the blockchain to secure national health records. "This is an additional security feature," says Artur Novek, the foundation’s Implementation Manager and Architect. Ideally, this technology should allow each citizen to know precisely who has consulted their medical file, at least that is what Siim Sikkut suggested at a C2 Montreal conference recently. For the moment, I don't know if we intend to imitate this approach in Quebec.

In Estonia, other improvements are to come in the coming years, notably by analyzing data with artificial intelligence systems and by facilitating access to health care for people from home. If you are interested in learning more, you can contact Taavi Einaste, Head of Digital Healthcare at Nortal. Blockchain and healthcare: the Estonian experience Stefanos Stefanos (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Too close

Doc James I never read this web page. I understand the concern. Regards

https://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/new-rabies-test-could-save-lives-maybe-even-minus-the-shots-733980.html

User:Manuelmsd sounds good. Did you base it originally on the CDC site? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

In spanish here: http://www.viveusa.mx/bienestar/crean-prueba-rapida-de-rabia-para-evitar-inyecciones-innecesarias

Okay thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_136&oldid=844632762"