Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Finasteride

I was hoping you might be prepared to have another look at Talk:Finasteride. Doors22 (talk · contribs) continues to make veiled and unveiled personal attacks. JFW | T@lk 13:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User has seemed to have stopped editing. Will keep an eye on things. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Alprazolam

Have done a pass over recreational use, improving citation and moving primary refs and anecdote further down, rm how-to. Please double check and ok my changes. 70.137.150.110 (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In the alprazolam article as well as the benzodiazepine misuse article I find reference to predisposition to abuse by "familial alcoholism", "alcoholic siblings" and "alcoholic parents". My first hunch is to dismiss these primary sources as remnants of genetic theories of inferiority like in the eugenics era and in the national-socialist pseudo science. I am not very surprised to see such research, as these ideas have not even disappeared from the law books of some US states. What is your opinion? A war against drugs to the castration knife? I tend to dismiss it as primary sources and due to WP:MEDRS. I am aware that by sampling bias, biased collectives etc. you can produce almost arbitrary results of this kind. 70.137.159.50 (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Apart from the fact that a good part of "addiction research", like the place pref/naloxone experiments, seems to be cargo cult science and voodoo and also to undergo fashions which are slowly creeping and changing, essentially taking on a life of their own. 70.137.159.50 (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes looks good :-) We are just here to reflect the opinions of the best available research not to provide the "truth" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, before somebody links benzo abuse to a lack of "aryan" characteristics or to the form factor of the skull. 70.137.159.50 (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Start a new page in Wikipedia?

Hi, I wonder if I can start a new page for a trademarked product? In this case Baha. If so, do I start a completely new page or do I edit the existing landing page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baha

Best regards Josabeth

Josabeth (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We already have a page on BAHA here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_Anchored_Hearing_Aid Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That is the general acronym "BAHA" and the page is incorrect. "Baha" is the trademarked name. I would like to start a page for Baha so people/patients can find what they are looking for and get the correct information. Is this allowed? Josabeth (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty is that you work for the company. Thus you creating this page is discouraged.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Suicide

There seems to be little point in attempting to continue a discussion with Anthonyhcole. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Saheli

Hello, I added yesterday content (new references and external link) to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saheli, which belongs WikiProject Pharmacology.

How long does it take to be approved? I can only see it when I log in.

I represent LoveMatters, a department of Radio Netherlands, that aims to promote love and sex questions in India. We have a website (www.lovematters.info) that has published an article on Saheli and its benefits (http://www.lovematters.info/saheli-%E2%80%93-only-non-hormonal-birth-control-pill). We have no marketing intentions, just information for the Indian population, helping Indians making best options concerning their sexual health.

All the best tariniti

Tariniti (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a reliable reference source. If you are interested in improving the quality of this article better sources can be found via pubmed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Karenblackhall

Please remove your tag and un-collapse the section containing the COI warning on this page. Blackhall clearly has a potential conflict of interest in this matter. She is in charge of public relations for the Cochrane Groups, the entity she cites in her many references. She also has the potential to add a great deal of useful information to Wikipedia and should be encouraged to do so. However, her expertise in medical science does not render her immune from Wikipedia policies, so warnings about potential COI are entirely appropriate. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

They are bity. Wikipedia needs to learn how to be a little less bity. They are still their just collapsed. If she wishes to uncollapse them she can. She has obviously read them. She is in fact free to remove them all together.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Canadian student's law article

Could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limitations on copyrightability: Ideas and facts vs. expression; merger doctrine; scènes à faire in IP law in Canada. This article seems to head the topics of Canadian law in a good direction, and if we want more students editing Wikipedia this is no way to treat them. That this is a part of "Canadian arm of the Global Education Program" should make no difference. Articles should simply be judged on their own merits, and editing is preferable to deleting. The "Canada Education Program" seems to be a brainchild of the WMF developed without Canadian consultation. - Ray Eclecticology (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have spoke with the WMF about this measure. We just officially got out chapters agreement a month ago. We now get jurisdiction over programs here in Canada. One of the main people Jonathan Obar is going to be joining us. He is a Canadian citizen. But agree we need to be more welcoming.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
An American went ahead and deleted the article anyway. Eclecticology (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC/Tenmei

Thank you again for your mentoring. I can't repeat often enough that I appreciated your efforts. My participation the project was affected by your investments of time and thought.

Also, please let me thank you again for your participation in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei, especially for your endorsement of a comment by Beeblebrox here. You may recall reading,

I find the "evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" unimpressive. Especially [1] in which this RFCU is held over Tenmei's head as a threat. These goal of an RFCU is to come to a mutually agreeable voluntary solution to an unresolved problem. It is not a court and Tenmei is not on trial. RFCU is generally the last stop before ArbCom, if this effort fails to arrive at a solution I seriously doubt ArbCom would accept a case.

As it turned out, the RfC was cited as part of an ArbCom findings of fact which explicitly endorsed the complaints of Qwyrxian here and Bobthefish2 here.

Although Tenmei was counseled on this issue during the prior case, his manner and style of communications during disputes has not improved. Whether intentional or not, Tenmei's involvement in the current dispute has frustrated involved and uninvolved editors alike, amplifying and prolonging the dispute resolution process.(Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei (see views by HXL49 and Taemyr); Evidence section "Tenmei", provided by Qwyrxian; [2])

As remedies, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision included:

Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.

In retrospect, I would have preferred you did something different in the RfC. It would have helped me if you and others had argued forcefully that the complainers needed to help me by addressing the direct questions I posted as an initial response:

A. In specific, what could I have done differently at any specific point?
B. In specific, what should I have avoided at any specific point?
C. In specific, how could I have parsed perceived options differently at any specific point?
D. In specific, what unidentified options were overlooked at any specific point?
E. In specific, what worked? What didn't? Why?
F. In specific, what illustrated good judgment? bad judgment?

I explain this now because I hope it will influence your thinking in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is best not to go to ArbCom.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, QED. --Tenmei (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger Davies commented about here about "recognizing the very considerable efforts that went into mentorship" .... Yes -- each of us did everything we were asked to do. Those who volunteered to be mentors deserve repeated thanks and acknowlegement, nothing less.

However, mentorship has been re-assessed in terms of whatever Davis means by "its subsequent failure".

Shall I allow this phrase to pass unchallenged? No mentors failed, nor was mentorship a failure.

Whatever this means is only another example of moving the goalposts.

Yes, ArbCom failed us all again.... And yes, if someone will explain it to me, I can try to understand how and why anonymous Tenmei failed again -- but not you. Please believe that you did all that anyone could have hoped for or expected. --Tenmei (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Obesity edit

Hi. I am not clear why my addition on a relevant Duke obesity study was deleted. I'd appreciate some clarity. thank you. pismo01. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pismo01 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair trade debate

Re your edit summary here [3] - yeah, I know, I know. I've just put some work into improving the citations, including DOIs and links to online text wherever I could find them. I hope this helps. See you on the article Talk page? Yakushima (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Alprazolam

Please take a look there, an editor is determined to change the text to WP:OR and SYN, hard to stop. Does not discuss. 70.137.159.50 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the issue is? Start a discussion on the talk page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe Verster et al. say onset of effect within the first week, not 35 minutes. I believe it may take several days until full effect is reached in panic disorder, so the 35 min. are WP:OR and not supported by ref. 70.137.159.50 (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have taken it to discussion page, it is still reverted, 2 primary sources added to outweigh review article. Editor182 does not discuss, it is 3rr. I give up. 70.137.159.50 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

ref Verster et al. copied to talk page, see there. 70.137.159.50 (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Give it some time. I will look at it when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

fulltext Verster et al., searchable pdf, copied to article as a ref. Found explanation why benefit in panic disorder is also claimed in "first week". They titrate dose upward over several days until sufficient protection against panic attacks is achieved, that takes a few days. So their statement is explained in the context of the treatment algorithm they are using, see also APA guidelines and others. See discussion page alprazolam. 70.137.143.254 (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why delete EL, and support group info?

A support group link is very beneficial to people with CSF Leaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foolsgold55 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment about sock accusations

Hi, I am here about your accusations that Doc2 was/is using sock puppets. I took a break from Wikipedia because of these kinds of things going on that were frustrating the heck out of me. I just started in past few days to come back slowly to be told that this accusation has be made. I don't know the back story to this and I don't want to know. What I am trying to do here and at the sock accusation is to get someone to answer me on how anyone could say she was using a sock with this name because of behavioral issues. How does anyone come to any kind of conclusions about someone on behavior issues with one editor having only 1 edit the whole time. What behavior is being compared here to say that Doc 2 is using NYdoc85 as a sock or meat? How on earth did this conclusion even become? I'm sorry if you think I'm attacking, I'm not, but assuming good faith in others is also a policy that I feel has been totally ignored. My apologies if this is coming too hard at you but I hope you understand why this is so wrong to do to someone like this. Doc 2 takes pride in this project and this is amazing to me since she has been under attack since her first day here. She has a temper that needs controlling at times but using any kind of puppet is not in her. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Crohnie. Thanks for getting involved. I have not had any issues with your civility. It was Doc2s comments about my spelling that are not needed. The issue was about half a dozen accounts making the same edit on many different pages within a couple of days with most accounts having few other edits. I am not a check user thus not sure how this conclusion was arrived at. Doc2 was editing against the consensus at WP:ELNO and was reverted by a number of very active editors well versed in policy yet persisted. Than claims support when new editors with no other edits join her. Anyway she just needs to discuss her edits more on the talk page or at WT:MED and keep things content rather than user based. Glad to see you are back.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James. Doc 2 has a very bad temper and this she is reminded of quite often when she gets into situations like this. Doc 1 also keeps an eye on Doc 2 for other reasons. Doc 2 has been hassled big time by a bad internet bully who finally got indefinitely banned by the community. The things all of has to put up with when it came to SRQ was really bad. My pages and Doc 2 pages are both protected so that we don't have to read the trash this user used to abuse us with. I'm telling you this so that maybe you can understand why she is so defensive and angry so quickly about things. Thanks for your understanding though, happy editing. I hope for a bit more editing here but still not ready to get back in the saddle completely yet. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes Wikipedia can unfortunately be a nasty place.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

comments posted today to wikipedia Xanax page

Hello Doc James,

Well, as you might have expected, we're replying to you, or more exactly, to the alprazolam talk page, again. We're persistent, but I hope you'll agree, not irrationally so.

We are, perhaps, getting the hang of the editing process. At first today, I put our latest contribution at the top of the "Abuse" section, but then I believe I corrected this by going back into the edit screen and moving our comments to the end of that section.

We find it confusing to read some of the comments in the talk page, maybe because we're not familiar with the way this page works. Hence we've also posted our comments as a PDF at www.barglow.com/WikipediaXanax.pdf.

By the way, we did quite a bit of research on this subject, spending an afternoon at the library of the UC Medical Center in San Francisco.

Thanks,

Raymond Barglow Peter Barglow Rbarglow (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Guys To help me out could you provide the single best piece of evidence and the wording you wish this to support in the article? The PMID is useful aswell. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for use of Osteoporosis Image

Dear Dr. Heilman,

I am currently in the process of developing an audio-visual on Osteoporosis for an Osteoporosis symposium being conducted by Takeda, Korea for their brand Evista (raloxifene HCL). I would like to use the image of the osteoporotic lady from Japan (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osteoporosis.JPG) to illustrate the osteoporosis continuum. Please, do let me know if this is acceptable to you and if so what you would like me to add by way of a disclaimer/license byline to the audio-visual where this image appears. Thanks for your time and work.

Best, Kunal Puri A&R, Mumbai (India) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.170.22 (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes no worries feel free to use this image. Attribution of Wikipedia and myself is all I ask. I have been meaning to clean up the background but have not had time.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Will certainly add the credit line to the section featuring the image. Best, Kunal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.169.188 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd also be happy to send you the cut-out of the image that we've processed as a PNG if you like. I wasn't able to get your email address off this site since I'm not a user but if you drop me a message at kunal@anrweb.com, I'll zip it across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.169.188 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy RfC result

The closing admin has left it to you to complete the image move. I'll do it if you don't want to get involved again, since I'm already up to my neck in it. let me know. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Jmh649tangas

Hi. Are you aware of this this character? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No and thanks for the heads up. Should not get confused with me.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Continuing education

Hi Doc James,

I don't understand why you are removing the external links. iBioSeminars/iBioMagazine are free online seminars by expert scientists in the field who research that particular topic. This is a free educational resource, is funded by the National Science Foundation and is completely open to the public (similar to Khan academy, which I have also seen cited as a continuing education resource in external links).

Where would you like me to go to petition this? I wish you had asked me to do this before reverting all of the links that have been up there for many months and have allowed people to learn more about a particular topic.

Thanks, Orangutans (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sarah I shall start the discussion here at WT:MED. If there is support I will return the links in questions. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks Doc James. I will add my opinion below your post. I am relatively new to Wikipedia (I have been involved in their Public Policy Initiative, which inspired me to contribute to science topics) so please be patient with my formatting! Best, Orangutans (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Orangutans
Sounds good. I will make sure to petition next time. My understanding is that the lectures are meant to be open access in the sense that they are freely distributable and there is no copyright or anything preventing their dissemination and use. However I do not know how they can be open source?Orangutans (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Orangutans
I understand and will inquire as to what type of license they have. Thanks for bringing this all to my attention. I'd like to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Orangutans (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Oranguatans
Hi Doc James! I was wondering what you thought about the discussion about the EL. It seems people's opinions fall somewhere in the middle. After reading the others opinions, my own opinion is that the links are appropriate on the speakers own Wikipedia pages when the material presented is related to why they have a Wikipedia page in the first place (e.g. Martin Chalfie on Martin Chalfie's page), but that some of the other links I added may not be considered useful by the Wikipedia community. There were a few links that got reverted where I updated an old link to the same site which had been on the page long before I started editing Wikipedia, and I think those should be turned back into active links. I also think that if a person is a Nobel Laureate or NAS member and gives a free talk on their area of expertise that might be considered useful and appropriate as well, but that those links should be added sparingly. What do you think? Will more people weigh in on the discussion? Should I bring this up in another science forum? Orangutans (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nuisance Editor Warning

Hi Jmh649,

I was wondering if you would be able to warn a nuisance user that they may be banned, if they continue to vandalise pages. They are an IP editor, but have been making edits since 2008. It is IP address User:77.76.106.46 and recently (7th Oct, 2011) vandalised the Alcohol intoxication page. Please have a look at a small selection of their edits and you'll see what I mean.

If you are not the best person to direct this to, please point me in the right direction.

Thanks

Kind Regards

Mitch

MitchMcM (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The user has been warned. I have the page on my watch list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Additions to acne treatment

Regarding the reverts, most of the new material presented had references equal to the quality of other material in the section. These references were sourced from other Wikipedia articles which talk about acne treatment, and cover treatments briefly mentioned in the treatment section introduction. I am still unsure as to why this material were reverted.

The few parts with lesser references, were describing the claimed active ingredients of treatments sold by pharmacies. If claims of efficacy were being made, I would understand a revert, but they are not.

Regarding the repositioning of tea tree oil, the evidence quoted for it's effectiveness appears to be as rigorously assessed as that of some of the treatments deemed to be "non-alternative". If so, why is tea tree oil categorised as "alternative"? 59.167.126.21 (talk) 05:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Much of the new content was unreferenced. Others was not supported by review articles. Tea tree oil even though supported by review articles is regarded as "alternative medicine" thus that is how it is labeled. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I admit to not having previously attempted to improve medical articles. I can accept that a higher level of accuracy may be believed to be required of them than articles of other natures. But I'm afraid I don't understand why material deemed to be acceptable in articles about specific treatments is deemed to be unacceptable in an article about the condition being treated. I am also curious to know which global medical board determines which non-prescription preparations are "alternative" and which are not.59.167.126.21 (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Pharmaceuticals are a single compound typically ( or a couple ) alt med products contain many thousands/millions. Pharmaceuticals are regulated in many countries alt med products are not. You could ask for further clarification at WT:MED if you wish. Being a pharmaceutical has the benefit of the countries health board (health canada/FDA giving official approval to certain uses). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry, James, I didn't know that I couldn't do that. I'll desist immediately. I plan to respond to the last round of posts at WP:Med in a day or two and concede that I lost the case on indiscriminate ELs to MedMerits. At this point I was just trying to make others interested in medicine of MedMerits as a new resource. Maybe there is a better way to do that. Presto54 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

References

No, I'm not going to "hide" refs. If consecutive sentences or passages in the same paragraph are supported by the same ref, one citation of it at the end is enough. A ref for each sentence is overkill. Nightscream (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What problems? Nightscream (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
People come along and tag the sentence. Or sentences get moved around. Then we at WP:MED have trouble verifying which ref supports the text. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Heading

WP:MEDRS clearly states that reliable primary sources can be used with care,"Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge."

Please stop removing my edits. The claim, "Only one independent study has shown that Escitalopram is more effective than citalopram, but in October 2011 it was reported that the company that sponsored the study had links to Lundbeck, the makers", is clearly false because of the existence of the article on PubMed.

Also, my FDA/Orange Book information are clearly statements from a "nationally or internationally recognised expert body".

Rhproofer (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For assuming immediately good faith when I reverted your edits by accident. Thank you and happy editing! pluma Ø 03:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Heading

You have decided to cite a primary source yourself, but refuse to allow my primary source. This is hypocritical, and acting in bad faith. You state in part, "which also raised concerns regarding sponsorship bias of the trials", and you seem overly concerned with pointing out sponsorship bias. I am not addressing the issue of sponsorship bias.

This is an article about Escitalopram, not "Sponsorship Bias of Trials of Escitalopram". I recommend that you start a new article about the ethical issues of the drug industry or the particular companies related to escitalopram that bother you to satisfy yourself.

I am reverting the article one more time. If you revert it again, I will start a dispute.

Rhproofer (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This Cochrane review is a Review article Cipriani, A (2009 Apr 15). Cipriani, Andrea (ed.). "Escitalopram versus other antidepressant agents for depression". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (2): CD006532. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006532.pub2. PMID 19370639. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pericardial effusion CAT images

Hello, I was wondering if I did something wrong or you kept deleting my link. I just found out that it was you. I am sorry but I don't get what I do wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.58.109.59 (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 93.58.109.59 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes as stated on your talk page we do not link to many external sites especially when this content could be added here. If you own the copyright to these images please upload them to commons and then they can be added. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you thing that's possible for every subject? I mean just for pericardial effusion I have 2 cases, 16 images each... 93.58.109.59 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Dimitris

Video production

What are you views about the production of a series of video modules on human biology/anatomy (pitched at High School level) that could be hosted at Commons, to accompany other Wikimedia Content?

At the very least it would be useful to know which major systems should be presented in a series of that type :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes should good. Maybe also over at Wikiversity? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikiversity has some 'issues' at present, but yes :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Gastric antral vascular ectasia

Hi doc, can you please look at this article and fix any obvious errors? I'd like to get it to GA status. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Will take a look... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My contribution to asthma deleted

I thought I did a pretty thorough job of adding Halotherapy to the Complementary Medicine section of Asthma. Anything specific that was not right? Was all my work totally deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyura (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to use review articles Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoosexuality

What about this as a sexual orientation? You want to support its inclusion at the Sexual orientation article? Homosexuals and zoosexuals, in the same boat. You can come in and comment on the talk page. 120.203.215.11 (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Tea Tree Oil treatment of Atopic Dermatitis

Hello,

I hope you are well. Please explain why you removed my reference.

Sincerely, Jase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaselives (talk • contribs) 02:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Escitalopram Edits

I have made my case on OhNoitsJamie's Talk page. Please continue the discussion there. Thank you.

Rhproofer (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Opinions

About this suggestion to keep all refs on a single line: I and many other editors find it much easier to edit if the citation templates are neatly formatted across multiple lines. It's merely a matter of personal opinion, so I don't think we should be attempting to push new users towards either approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I guess I should say easier for me :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

academic institution involvement?

Hello Doc James,

I'm a long-time user and big fan of wikipedia, but I've never made the jump to editing pages. I have no idea if you are the 'right' person to be asking for advice. I've just been looking at the gabapentin page and your name has come up there as a contributor who has been recently active. If you can not help me, maybe you can point me in the right direction? If you could consider quickly this question, I would be grateful:

I am a pharmacology instructor at a new pharmacy school in the Chicago area. As a part of building our curriculum, we have been asked to propose a few elective courses for our students. Because I refer to wikipedia so much, and I find it so useful (for both professionals and layperson), I wondered if we might get our students involved in writing and editing the wiki pharmacology pages as part of a formal course they take for credit. I assume that would go over well at this institution, which prides itself on community service. Do you have any idea if this kind of involvement through an organization or institution is welcomed by the wikipedia community? Of course I know that anyone can begin editing, and I don't immediately see how the effort of sub-group would be any different, but then there could be complexities/issues that a novice such as myself would not predict.

The wiki pharmacology pages are great. However I have noticed that some standardization between the pages might be helpful, even for some of the well-crafted ones. And of course there are always new things coming up that need a page manufactured... Basically, that's how I see groups of students being active and productive in a long-term fashion.

Thanks in any case. I am juggler too, BTW, though I can do five only in the 'cheat' pattern! kirk

192.175.20.30 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Kirk Would love to discuss further and can definitely provide some help / directions. Please send me an email (jheilman at wikimedia dot ca) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

DocOfSoc SPI case

Hey. I thought you'd be interested to know that the results from the DocOfSoc SPI case have come into question. They're being discussed over at User talk:Risker#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DocOfSoc. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

We do not need the drama. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Kawasaki disease external links - why did you remove them?

Why did you remove the 2 external links on the Kawasaki Disease wiki page, kdfoundation.org and kdforum.org? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bommerts (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

www.ahsevents.org/assets/Final_6.15.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.138.121 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

UK 2010

I can't seem to find that page that is meant to contain discussion on the event that is being planned. Could you point me in the right direction? JFW | T@lk 21:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

We're in the year 2011. :-P Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is the template for the meetups in the UK; you can check the relevant 2010 talk pages. See also Wikipedia:Meetup/UK.Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been compiling all the medical outreach stuff here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Editor_outreach The UK event we are planning is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medicine/UK_2012 --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

For being Awesome :) Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Heading

Holmes was a respected malariologist. I thought this was a nice pull quote which gives a summary of the existing situation nicely.

Chess has 32 pieces, 64 squares and relatively simple rules but the number of possible permutations even within a few moves are enormous which at least in part accounts for its enduring popularity.

There are ~100 species of mosquito that transmit malaria to humans and they all have different breeding and biting patterns. There are a number of species of Plasmodium that infect humans. While the basic pattern is always the same - mosquito -> human -> mosquito the reason malaria has proven so resistant to control or elimination is because of these permutations.

I thought and still think the simile is appropriate particularly given its origin. I would be grateful if you could outline your objections to its use in a little more detail.DrMicro (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple things 1) needs a reference 2) does not belong as the first sentence of the article (may be in the history section) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_23&oldid=1075200444"