User talk:Doc James/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

• From the editor: Stepping down

• Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap

• News and notes: Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $3M grant

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close

• Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Emphysema reverts

Hi. Please tell me why you reverted my adds to the Notable Causes section. Both actors' articles state that they died of emphysema.

Thanks for the offer of help. Beyond pointing readers to the actors' Wikipedia articles, what sort of supporting evidence should I post? Regarding the lung stem cell add, do you want me to add the citation at *exactly* the same time I add the info or you'll revert it? While I was working on the formatting for the cite, you wiped the copy off.

Doc - Followed your advice. Please take a look at the article and let me know if I did it right. 174.252.246.3 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes much better :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Doc James or Docjames

I am confused. When I click on the user name Doc James it refers me to your User talk: Jmh649. However, in the section "A bit about me", you state that DocJames is a different editor. Is there a difference between Doc James and DocJames? Why does the hyperlink Doc James link to to the User page:Jmh649? Is this an error? I also appreciate your Teddy quote commenting on the role of the gladiator versus the critic. It's inspirational. Thank you. Otto Placik (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You might like to read WP:CUSTOMSIG. In addition to changing the color and font in their signatures, people choose to display nicknames rather than their official account names.

There are many users with confusingly similar names. User:Docjames is not the same human as User:Doc James; User:Mastcell is not the same human as User:MastCell. User:Jmh649 obviously created User:Doc James as a WP:DOPPELGANGER account, to prevent someone else becoming the third "Doc James" on Wikipedia (either by accident, or for malicious purposes: prominent editors often attract impersonators). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks for clearing that up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Thanks for the feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agwoodliffe (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: peptic ulcer

Hello, Thank you for the information. That was my first edit, and I actually went back and did my best to rephrase my source.Draco04 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

reliable sources, NHS BBC

Why do you consider the NHS and BBC to be unreliable? Pass a Method talk 22:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Also, can you be a bit more specific? I quoted 3 refs, which one is unreliable? Pass a Method talk 22:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

For the text being used neither the BBC nor a lay page at the NHS is suitable. The book was not a major textbook. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You have not answered the question. You have called the refs "unsuitable", "unreliable" and "not major". But you have not explained why they are so. Nor have you provided a wiki policy that supports your argument. Please give a link to a wikipedia polcy that supports your argument, and explain your disapproval for the refs. At least three established editors have disagreed with your stance on these refs. Pass a Method talk 12:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Because not one of them is peer reviewed. Newspapers are poor sources of medical information with an accuracy below Wikipedia itself. The NHS has not been peer reviewed and as such one would not present its conclusions as fact. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not come accross a sub-section on WP:RS that says refs have to be peer-reviewed. Is this wikipedia policy or are you making stuff up? Pass a Method talk 17:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS " Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies" None of your sources quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

So how am i supposed to know whether a reference is peer-reviewed or not? Pass a Method talk 18:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Use one of the three types of sources mentioned above. If you need help with access let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell the difference between a peer-reviewed article and non-peer-reviewed. Do you mind telling me the difference? Pass a Method talk 18:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost all article on pubmed are peer reviewed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You described the book as "not a major textbook" - can you explain what you meant please? Do you mean its not peer-reviewed? Pass a Method talk 21:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a medical text http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0AhQAIg53h4C&pg=PA208&dq=foreskin+protects+glans&hl=en&ei=Q6cgTvLiJoa08QOlwum7Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg%23v=onepage&q=foreskin_protects_glans&f=false#v=onepage&q=foreskin_protects_glans&f=false Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources - JGDPP and Drug Free Australia

OhioStandard, DocJames, Steinberger, I believe that we are at a place where this content dispute needs the input of other parties beyond the neutral third party comment previously requested and received on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. DocJames, you appear ready to take action and this may be a possible way ahead, so invite you to take it. I certainly feel that mediation/arbitration of the issue is the next step according to what I see in the dispute resolution policies. I have not altered text on the pages with disputed text, but if you have not initiated a further step in dispute resolution in the next few days then I will be happy to initiate it. Minphie (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I got involved with this an a independent third party after a post on WT:MED. We have three editors who actively disagree with your position. Feel free to request a third opinion WP:3O Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Otitis media

Hi,

Regarding your reversion of my change of acetaminophen to paracetamol, I simply don't agree. We're not talking about a simple English variant - the fact is that acetaminophen is rarely used outside of North America. The link forwards to a page titled paracetamol, and they have discussed this at great length there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paracetamol#Acetaminophen_.3E_Paracetamol). If you still feel I have been wrong to revert to my edit, I welcome discussing it.

Regards, ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate_(talk)(spy) 08:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise we will use both. Just as we use both units of measurement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

List of encyclopedias

It's an external link, you can dress it up as reference but that doesn't detract from what it is. Shame on you for trying to use wikipedia to advertise your own work. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not an external link. Please try to find consensus for your efforts to remove referenced content before you attempt to remove it again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a reference for the article. It's a reference designed merely to advertise the availability of another list on your webstie. It's just an external link dressed up as a reference. As for consensus for removing it, it's right there at WP:ELNO an established consensus for what is appropriate to be linked and what is not. You seem to be avoiding acknowledging your own WP:COI in the matter. Please don't use wikipedia in such a way, try and gain consensus for wikipedia being a vehicle to drive traffic to your website. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not my website. I am involved with no website other than this one.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The authorship claimed is "Heilman JM", which is who you claim to be on your user page. The conflict of interest is self evident. Reality is that you are using it to advertise your work, you may want to twist and turn, disguise external links as references etc. but that is the simple truth of the matter --82.19.4.7 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thought you where referring to this link here http://davidrothman.net/list-of-medical-wikis/ The paper to which I am an author is NOT an external link but a reference thus ELNO does not apply..Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My link

Why did you take my link down? This site that is being linked to has a wealth of information that relates directly to the page. I designed the page so it would be a resource for people who are looking for information on this topic and feel that it is a very appropriate external link.

I would like some explanation please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben123holland (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are you taking down my links? I have created pages that have a wealth of information related to the topic on the wikipedia pages. I am not spamming, these pages are a resource for anyone who would like to learn more about the topic presented in the article. My pages will help people.

If you could please tell me how i can change these pages to conform to the regulations necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben123holland (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

--Ben123holland (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Ben123holland--Ben123holland (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC) I sent that last message about my links being taken down

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts towards getting Wikipedia onto the Trip database. Colin°Talk 18:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Colin :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

• News and notes: WMF Annual plan; Article Feedback tool; university outreach; brief news

• In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news

• WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!

• Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual

• Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder

• Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

alprazolam

The article contains various misrepresentation of references. Like previous benzodiazepine articles it has been vandalized by systematic misrepresentation of sources, see the case of the Temazepam article. It needs systematic cross check against the references. See my recent edits and verify, please. I agree with the removal of untenable indication against depression on its own, the refs are indeed dated. But the other claims need to be checked. Seems that misinformation has systematically been introduced by editor VeronicaPR (blocked), Thegoodson (blocked) and IP sockpuppets of them. Can you check that out? 70.137.154.88 (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)\

Thanks will do when I have time. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this ref for use in depression better?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8262892 70.137.154.88 (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of other papers Furukawa, TA (2002). "Antidepressant and benzodiazepine for major depression". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (1): CD001026. PMID 11869584. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Birkenhäger, TK (1995 Sep). "Benzodiazepines for depression? A review of the literature". International clinical psychopharmacology. 10 (3): 181–95. PMID 8675972. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Neither are very encouraging about the usage of benzos in depression. All the literature is old because few people still use them for this indication and they are less effective than TCAs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember "Limbatril", may have had a different name in english speaking countries. It was a mix of 5mg Librium and 12.5mg Amitryptiline, both a rather low dosage. Together it was very strong. The subjective effect was like wearing a tea cosy as a night cap, but of course they didn't advertise it like that. So I guess, it could make sense to mention e.g. for anxiety in agitated depression. I believe the review refs talk about using alprazolam as an adjoint medication with an antidepressant. So the question is not about benzos vs. e.g. TCAs, but their combined use. Can you take a look again? This is what you refs above are discussing. 70.137.146.197 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 70.137.146.197 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay what are you proposing? Benzos are not approved for depression by any body that I am aware off. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Limbitrol is still FDA approved, as far as I can see. This would be a counterexample.70.137.160.123 (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No it is not a counter-example, the chlordiazepoxide is for the anxiety symptom and the tricyclic antidepressant is for the depression symptom. Read the prescribing indication, it is for depression and anxiety, not for depression on its own. Hello again anon, I trust all is well with you? :-) I is ok, I suppose.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure all well. It is a counterexample for benzo "not approved" for anxiety in e.g. agitated depression. From there it appears that alprazolam could be used for the same purpose, combined w. antidpressant. Above refs point to such combined use. They also say that the advantages of such combinations dissipate over a few weeks. But my take is, that it still could be useful in the beginning of the treatment, from what refs say. It is a counterexample of benzo generally not approved in depression. (be it the agitation or anxiety associated with depression) The question was if such refs are so outdated, that they are factually obsolete, such that any use supported by such refs would not belong in the article 70.137.160.123 (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Doc James did not say that though, he said they are not approved for depression and he is right. They can be used for comorbid/coexisting conditions/symptoms such as anxiety (although some care is needed as benzos can sometimes worsen depression). Antipsychotics or sedating antidepressants or benzos can be used for the agitation component of agitated depression. Glad all is well with you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So in a strict sense it would be used against a symptom of depression, in case of anxiety/agitation caused by depression and agitated depression. The patient has depression in this case, not two diseases. 70.137.129.223 (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with the 2002 Cochrane conclusions "The potential benefits of adding a benzodiazepine to an antidepressant must be balanced judiciously against possible harms including development of dependence and accident proneness, on the one hand, and against continued suffering following no response and drop-out, on the other." and "The difference was no longer significant at six to eight weeks. None of the included RCTs lasted longer than eight weeks." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Defib paddles vs. pads

James, I've been having an argument with my local paramedic who thinks he's an MD, and I was wondering what your thoughts as a Canadian ER doc were. Paddles or pads? In my hospital, we use both, paddles on the carts, and pads in the OR (except for internal paddles), and for patients who we think might code on us. Most ambulances around here seem to use pads. What do you use, and do you have a preference? Ronk01 talk 20:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is hospital dependent. I have worked at places where only paddles where used ( benefits: cost, potentially less chance of shocking co works as when you come at someone with paddle people get out of the way ) and now work in a place where it is all hands free ( benefits: some of the pads provide feedback of CPR quality ) I am happy with either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my thought. I must admit that there's an added "ER factor" when you pull out the paddles and yell "clear!" :) Ronk01 talk 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Article needing protecting

Hi Doc,

I have sent a 3rr warning and an 'only warning' for vandalism to an editor, but they ignored both warnings and deleted reffed content. I am wondering can you look at the page history; of the article taig and semi-protect the article? I am tempted to revert a 4th time as vandalism but am hesitant as I don't want to get blocked. If you disagree that the article needs semi-protected, no worries. I feel the editor is making the article very POV and is going against NPOV (makes protestants look like nazis and gives a distorted biased viewpoint of reality to uninformed reader in my view). I kinda knew I shouldn't have tried editing Irish articles lol, politics, but I tend not to follow my gut instincts. :-p--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Have blocked for 12 hours to give this user some time to discuss matters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bronchial thermoplasty

I am very new to editing Wiki pages and would love your help! Since you are a physician you may be able to write this in a more acceptable format to the Wiki audience. I am the product manager and a early development engineer on the Alair system that delivers the new therapy for severe asthma called Bronchial Thermoplasty. it has been approved by the FDA and Health Canada for just over a year.

we have done 4 clinical trials all published in top tier journals including NEJM, treated over 300 patients and are a great new treatment for people with severe asthma. I can supply you with lots of information. Our web site BTforAsthma.com is a great place to start.

I just wanted to put some basic info on the Asthma, smooth muscle and Bronchial thermoplasty page but am finding that difficult.

Noah Webste29 (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

pov mirtazapine

There is no discussion on Talk:Mirtazapine regarding Mirtazapine pov. What is the issue? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to be supported with review articles rather than primary research. We over state the conclusions of the supporting evidence. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You removed my edit on atherosclerosis research. Why?

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/44925

This is recent research. Why not include it? It nails the cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We use review articles. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

How about this? http://www.eurobiotechnews.eu/service/start-page/top-news/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=13372--Ericg33 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The page outlines what a review is. Your link does not appear to work.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by November 12, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

• Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen

• News and notes: Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news

• In the news: Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news

• Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research

• WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion

• Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

TV Documentary / X Rays

Hi James,

I work for a television production company in London called Darlow Smithson (www.darlowsmithson.com, we produce the long running series for Animal Planet called I Shouldn't Be Alive. I've had a request come up for some scans of various injuries which we'd like to visualize by showing scans of. I found the image of a pleural effusion on wikipedia which happens to be one of them, do you have a copy of the image without the circle around it and would you allow us to use it in the documentary. I can see the image is registered in the creative commons but we'd still require you to sign a release form to say the image is yours and you're ok for us to use it. There is a list of other injuries which this poor chap suffered from, if you could help with any of these we'd be very grateful. They wouldn't necessarily have to be the exact injury but just to give the right impression. For example where he says he'd fractured four ribs we'd just need to see some broken ribs. Ignore some of the dodgy spelling from the transcriber.

I’d suffered to chest area I’d suffered a pural affusion to each lung from a blunt trauma – I’d fractured four ribs on the left side – I fractured my ulna and radius in my right arm at the wrist and also my middle finger in the right hand and I’d fractured the ulna in the left hand. I’d fractured the fibula in my left leg I’d suffered blunt trauma to my pancreas and my kidney – my kidney was bleeding – and I had a suffered retinal haemorrhages in each eye – which was affecting my vision.

If you're interested in helping I can be contacted on jack.penman@darlowsmithson.com and +44 (0)207 482 7027

Many thanks Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.penman (talk • contribs) 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Lodged

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Illicit Drug Interventions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minphie (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cholesterol depletion - Statins

Dearest Wikipedia editing colleague !

I linked parts of an "approved" Wiki-article on cholesterol depletion to statins, mentioning statins's adverse effects, soon to find it was removed !!

Now, the findings on effects caused by iatrogenic lowering of cholesterol levels, are well described in "renowned" publications, cited in the cholesterol depletion-article.

There are many, many more studies on this, not mentioned in the cholesterol depletion-article.

I understand that the "statin-issue" is highly emotional - even with nature scientists - who ideally should have as an open-minded approach as possible. This is at the very core of calling oneself "nature scientist" !!

The reasons for this emotionalism, I don't know, but I would guess it could be linked with one's involvement of the "issue" without being too specific.

I personally try to present as objective facts as possible, no matter in which "direction".

I was therefore a bit taken away by the highly speculative thoughts about statin's "general anti-cancer properties", especially when presented under the "Adverse effects section".

We all know that a number of natural substances tend to stay within lower and upper limits, in the human blood circulation. It is called homeostasis. Cholesterol being one. Under "Adverse effects" I think it is more than apt to have at least a minimum of known science on what "potential" [side]effects a drug-induced lowering of cholesterol can have !!

It would be very interesting to hear your view on this, also on which one/ones of the references in the cholesterol depletion-article do not fulfill the criteria of "review articles".

Finally, because of my lesser knowledge of how "topic-specific" editing is working, it might have been someone else that "undo:ed" my edit.

Best Regards ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.114.129 (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to use a single account so that I can determine to what you refer. You appear to be the same IP that was using none review article. If you do not know what a review artcle is please take some time to read about it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Syphilis GA review

Hi james,
Currently i am reviewing syphilis article for GA as you nominated it for GA. I have posted some good points on Talk:Syphilis/GA1 .Please do read.bye  Sehmeet singh  Talk  17:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Domestic violence

Hi, I tried to edit this page but I couldn't because it is protected. You protected it indefinitely on 6 December 2010 in response to what seems a limited amount of vandalism. I suspect that the vandal will, by now, be long gone and I should be obliged if you would unprotect it, please. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 5, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 5, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Dengue fever is an infectious tropical disease caused by the dengue virus. Symptoms include fever, headache, muscle and joint pains, and a characteristic skin rash that is similar to measles. Dengue is transmitted by several species of mosquito within the Aedes genus, principally A. aegypti. The virus has four different types; infection with one type usually gives lifelong immunity to that type, but only short-term immunity to the others. Subsequent infection with a different type increases the risk of severe complications. As there is no vaccine, prevention is sought by reducing the habitat and the number of mosquitoes and limiting exposure to bites. Treatment of acute dengue is supportive, using either oral or intravenous rehydration for mild or moderate disease, and intravenous fluids and blood transfusion for more severe cases. The incidence of dengue fever has increased dramatically since the 1960s, with around 50–100 million people infected yearly. Early descriptions of the condition date from 1779, and its viral cause and the transmission were elucidated in the early 20th century. Dengue has become a worldwide problem since the Second World War and is endemic in more than 110 countries. (more...)

It looks great :-) It great to see some major attention brought to this sometimes forgotten disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I will not be able to monitor the article for a significant part of the day, so I hope the others will keep an eye out. JFW | T@lk 20:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Will keep a close eye on it :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

• News and notes: Wikimania; why Board of Trustees elections attract few votes; brief news

• In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news

• Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team

• WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia

• Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case

• Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Read up on policy, that's not a 3RR. In addition, it's a valid tag with valid concerns that editors in good standing have voiced. You may not agree with that, but that's what talk pages are for. --Crusio (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

We need to reflect the sources and do not get to alter their conclusions just because we may not like them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes to epilepsy page

Hi I see you have deleted all my changes to epilepsy page. I had updated our domain name from National Society for Epilepsy to Epilepsy Society and had also added links to information on our website which would be useful for readers.

Please can you advise me why you have made these changes? I have been following your online advice and guidelines.

Many thanks

NicolaNicola Swanborough (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Doc editor :)

Hi sir, I understand you edited the revisions I made to the pages "Atopic Dermatitis" and "Eczema". I do not know what kind of doctor you are, but I hope you are a compassionate and understanding one. First of all, let me begin by telling you I am in no way trying to add information for promotional purposes; I saw this being one of the reasons you undid my addition. The other reason I believe was not reliable resources. I along with many others are suffering from worsening eczema. I am currently 70% healed by going through corticosteroid withdrawal. This is mentioned on the "Atopic Dermatitis" page under causes, and I just wanted to elaborate on it. The source for the steroid addiction info. that is already on that page under "topical steroid cream" is referenced as number 22, and the url for the resource is: http://kellypalace61.web.officelive.com/Documents/CorticosteriodAddictionArticle.pdf. The articles on the lady's website is by Dr. Rapaport and Dr. Fukaya of Japan. Dr. Rapaport has published his study in medical journals and well as Fukaya, the studies are medical and legitimate. The resources I cited when I made the additions to the pages contained the doctors' links to the articles as well. Please, understand, I am trying to help others that are suffering with these horrible symptoms, the itch and burning is horrible, and feels so, so bad. I am trying to let others know, since many people read wikipedia, that steroid addiction can be a cause of their worsening eczema. Thousands of poor people are suffering thinking there is no cure to their eczema, and even are suicidal from the debilitating and painful symptoms, especially the ITCH. Please, I have cried and suffered many painful months, actually 2 years of this nightmare, and am finally being cured through withdrawal, and avoiding allergens so I do not have to use corticosteroids ever again...not that I will, since my blood vessels and immune system are addicted. I am also a R.N. student, and am very passionate about this subject. Please tell me, what I would need to do on the websites I cited, in order for me to add additional information about this hidden phenomenon. We need to help others! I look forward to your response, and ask that you please allow additional information about this to be posted to the "Eczema" and "Atopic Dermatitis" pages. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Rochelle Sliwinski Rochelleks43 (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS regarding what type of sources are required for medical information.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Doctor, the references I had listed include secondary sources of UCLA Dr. Rapaport's study. It has been published in all the major medical and dermatology journals. So how do I allow my edit if my sources are legitimate? I wrote you an e-mail, the links to his study are on each website. Please review. Thank you very much, Rochelle Rochelleks43 (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar

You have made many amazing improvement to disease- and medicine-related articles, most recently bringing Syphilis up to "Good Article" standard. Your work is not only extremely thorough and well-sourced, but it's of immeasurable benefit to people who may have loved ones suffering from various diseases, and who want to learn what they can by reading reliable, succinct information. Thanks for all you do here! – Quadell (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Appreciate the kind words. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Antitarget

A mistake led me to this new term today. I like this word. Do you know it? Is it a conventional part of your vocabulary? --Tenmei (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not heard of it. New term for me aswell.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

• Wikimania: Seventh annual Wikimedia conference concluded in Haifa, Israel

• News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay

• In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news

• WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close

• Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Hi doc,

I was wondering if I could get some advice in relation to the article Risperidone. It's obviously relevant to psychiatry. Should I place a portal box at the end of the references or should I place a psychiatry navigation bar at the end of the article page? Thanks FiachraByrne (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Add the portal to the external links section may be? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK will do. Thanks FiachraByrne (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)