User talk:Doc James/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Linking Images

Most of the images in MedPix have been contributed by others who still hold rights to their own materials. I do not have their permission to copy these images to another website. We are working on a module to allow contributors to designate images for both MedPix and Wiki as they are uploaded. Programming not done yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlingonDoctor (talk • contribs) 20:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Book reviews

Thank you for suggesting to read the Manual. I'll be thankful if you explain where I am wrong.

Yes, I am editor in the Review.

Best, Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrich (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

James, I apologize, I am not used with the Wiki interface and I do not know if I`ve sent you my message. To answer again: I have time to edit only the `Further reading` section, it`s related with my job, so I know the content of the books I suggest and the topics I cover. Please explain where I am wrong, I`ll follow you advice... I saw that Blitz`s book and the link to his essay is deleted:Wiki readers will not profit. He`s is Pol. philosophy professor and an expert on Plato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrich (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What we are trying to do here is write an encyclopedia. We are not a lot of things per here WP:NOT. Using Wikipedia in an attempt to promote where you work is not appropriate per WP:COI. The external links, if we have them at all, are to be added by editors (people who have contributed extensively to the page in question). If all you are doing is adding external links without improving the content found here that is not good. I welcome you to get involved and improve the content in question but it cannot be to promote where you work. Hope this rambling explanation is understandable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

I really don't have time for deep editing, but I work all day with books and authors, and I do not promote my work or where I work. All my contributions are on subjects I know very well and on books that are relevant and important. If they are not relevant, they will be deleted. There are many missing important titles, who can do this job better than me and my colleagues? I edit FURTHER READING SECTIONS, if the external links I provide lead to junk or irrelevant information, I deserve rambling... Anyway, thanks for the explanation. I took notice. You speak with authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrich (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes Epidemiology of Childhood Obesity

I am taking Physiology of Public Health at Yale School of Public Health. I am working on the revisions and thank you for your help. Hope I can contribute as much as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anc sierra (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Three articles in one

Yes this is part of a school assignment. I combined these three articles together with the intention to go more in depth on the history of global health and the controversy around why there is so much focus on AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria specifically. I had hoped that this would shine through in the "Criticism" section.

Pluo (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Pluo

Yes unfortunately Wikipedia just hosts content in an encyclopedic format. There are other projects like Wikibooks where this may be more suitable.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Rhinorrhea references response

Without trying to start an edit war, I included Helminthic therapy because it is a possible treatment for allergies. Are you looking for something specific? Wikipedia aside, there's an estimated 0% chance that the terms "rhinorrhea" and "helminthic therapy" will appear in the same article together anywhere else. The words have two very different target audiences.

I guess where I'm going with this is which part of the Helminthic therapy treatment of Rhinorrhea do you believe is unsupported? I assumed it was the existence of the treatment, but apparently it's something else.

The first source I added, Parasitic Worms and Inflammatory Disease, admittedly is more about the potential treatment of T1D and other autoimmune diseases, but it lists the effects of parasitic infection. I included it because one of them is suppressing inflammatory reactions.

The second one, Helminths and Harmony is about the use of worms as possible treatment for inflammatory bowel disease.

There are plenty of websites out there that are dedicated to helminthic therapy, I only included one as a reference.

I don't believe I said it was a treatment to rhinorrhea in general, but to rhinorrhea caused by inflammation, notably due to a histamine reaction. If you don't think that that is enough to qualify to mention it, then I guess I don't have a problem with it. I'm just making sure you don't want it removed simply because it is considered an alternative medicine or something.

-Sesamehoneytart 19:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about "extreme histamine reactions" [1]. Thus not sure how this related? I have not seen a good article per WP:MEDRS that supports hemelith therapy for rhinitis and until that time this content is not appropriate to the article in question. Hope that explains my position.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Colorectal cancer, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages PET and Rectal bleeding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Circumcision

Hello Doc, [edit] is not considered vandalism and has been reverted. Please be a little more careful with new users in the future. Thanks Garycompugeek (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing a ref to something it does not say is vandalism. Cheers. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail

Da23677 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bed Bug

Hey Doc. I am interested in nominating the bed bug article for featured article of the day, but it needs a bit more polish I think. I read through the Talk archives and saw your many contributions. Would you be willing to take another look at it? It appears to have already gone through one nomination, but has only received a quality B class at that time. I'm trying to indentify whatever shortcomings are holding it back from A class. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I got side-racked for many hours on the related topic of bat bugs, the family Cimicidae in general, and the closely related bat parasites in the family Polyctenidae. It is so difficult to author an article on "bed bug", for which the name is often applied to multiple species. I'm still digging into the entomology of this organism. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Alprazolam

Somebody changed DSMIIIR there to DSM-IV-TR, which seems to be current revision. Source(FDA approval) says DSMIII3R. I am concerned that the citation remains valid and give this to your good hands to check. 70.137.142.148 (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If the ref says DSM3 we should go with it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

• News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics

• In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?

• Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions

• WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics

• Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content

• Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators

• Technology report: Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy vertigo!

Thank you! Marry Christmass! Happy vertigo! Your recommendation will be followed. Homofortunatus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homofortunatus (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about GAN reviews on psychology articles

You seem to be keeping an eye out for GAN psychology article. (You showed up on my review of Postpartum depression.) I imagine you have looked at Executive functions. I am frustrated that the references are given in such a way that it isn't possible to look them up easily or even tell the year of some journal articles. What is the best way to address this problem in a review, or is it not in the GA criteria?

I'm not sure how "tough" to be on GANs. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cancer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rectal bleeding and Clubbing

Dysthymia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to TCA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Books without borders

Hello, Jmh649! Yes, all Wikipedias have books. For example, here you have the help page in Spanish, and here you have the main category in French. Those two pages have lots of interwikis, so follow them. The only issue is that other Wikipedias don't have a Book namespace, so books are placed in the User or Wikipedia namespaces. And few have wikiprojects for books. I'd love to "translate" books into Spanish, but I would do that only if we get the namespace. When that happens, contact me to coordinate. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that, for example, the Spanish-language Wikipedia doesn't have a namespace Libro like the English version has Book. So here we have Book:Argentina, but in Spanish we have es:Wikipedia:Libros/Argentina, which is ugly. I'd like to have a namespace Libro, Buch, Livre, etc. When I get them, I'd love to do many books outside the English-language Wikipedia, and "translate" them back and forth to many languages. See you! --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

• Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

• News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

• WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

• Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

• Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Random issue that needs help

I came across this blog post Curing 30000 people by Scott Adams. After looking at Scott's edits, it appears that he adds good information to the wikipedia article, but he does not have any citations to back up his claims. I'm afraid that his edits will get reverted because there are no citations and that will lead to an inappropriate conclusion that information is being suppressed. I thought that a good medical wikipedia editor like yourself may be able to negotiate this craziness and guide the issue to ensure that all the good information is added to the article. Remember (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Tried my best. Yes what he added is generally supported by the literature.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help on this! You have vastly improved the section, and I believed helped avert a disaster. Let me know if I can ever repay the favor. Remember (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Epilepsy in Females with Mental Retardation ‎

Hi JHM, Thanks for the great catch on the Epilepsy in Females with Mental Retardation, that's one of a couple of things I wondered about.

I've got a bit more clean-up (5-10 minutes), bit really good to have someone overseeing the content. Do you mind if I do a smidge more and then I'm out of there for awhile to look for citations.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just removed the worst of it. Much more needs to be done. Feel free to keep at it :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

GA reveiw Common cold

Hi,

I have started a review of your nomination at Talk:Common cold/GA1 and made a few comments for you to address. I may add a few more; however the article looks fine. Clear and concise - the best kind!

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity (and I already know what you're going to say), but on American TV there is a drug advert saying that it shortens the duration of a cold. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As you wish.

I will not change your pages any longer. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.208.76 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia does have a lot of quality standards. Cheers. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tromboneist (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Diffuse panbronchiolitis

I did not come across the entity until now... and I am currently not at a place that is doing a lot of that area. In any case, I'll keep my eyes open -- as I do for stuff that is unusual. Nephron  T|C 03:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi. You just made a whole bunch of changes to the Tuberculosis article, and for most of them you left no edit summaries, or ones so brief and cryptic as to be meaningless. Please explain what you're doing as you do it so that others can follow, especially when moving things from one section to another. Thanks.--TEHodson 05:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am basically updating all the refs to bring the article to GA. BTW your last edit to the page in question did not contain an edit summary either [2] :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right; I don't usually leave one if I've check Minor Edit, as it's usually a comma or (in this case) a missing "to" that I put in, but I never fail to do so if I'm moving one whole section to another area! If what I'm doing is complicated, or substantial, I leave as detailed an edit summary as will fit. If you're copy-editing or making things more accurate, or whatever, you can type your explanation in once and when you start your next summary, the last one should pop up so you don't have to re-type it. I often copy-edit whole articles at once and find a generic explanation and just use it in each summary so the gist of what I'm up to is immediately clear to anyone stopping by. It helps others (and it helps me to remember what I've accomplished). In any case, we're supposed to do it, so we should. Your work on that article is terrific, by the way.--TEHodson 23:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately the reliability of google chrome with Wikipedia editing is poor, extra spaces are frequently added where they were not asked for, chromes freezes many times a day and I have no idea why, and sometimes I have real life stuff to take care of and thus hit save and have to head off. I can start my runs of edits with "rewrite of article" if that would help. They best way to follow what I am doing is to view the 50-100 edits I have made as a group.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Epilepsy in females with mental retardation

Hello Doc James,

I've taken the review/rewrite of Epilepsy in females with mental retardation about as far as I can right now (e.g., limited abstract info, one foreign reference, push my ability to grasp the subject only so far). If you have a chance to glance at the article and let me know where there are additional areas to focus on tightening/cleaning up, it would be much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The main thing is the article needs to be rewritten using secondary sources. Currently focusing on a project to improve and translate 80 medical topics of global significance.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks! Good luck with your project!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

History of cancer

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of cancer, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.mesothelioma-cancers.org/History%20of%20Cancer.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes looks like the site in question has copied from Wikipedia as it says at the bottom of the page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Taskforce

I responded on my talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Common cold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Antiviral, Trachea, Infectious and Face mask

Cancer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Hill and Frail

Caffeine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tolerance

Cardiovascular disease (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cardiac amyloidosis

Spasmodic dysphonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Voice therapy

Tuberculosis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tumor necrosis factor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

• Interview: The Gardner interview

• News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III

• Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future

• Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year James! Hope this one is a good one for you. This edit summary amused me. Can you imagine what might happen if the "lay public" wrote medical articles on Wikipedia? One shudders at the thought :-).

I've added some more student activity stats to User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, Part I.

I've written an essay at User:Colin/A large scale student assignment – what could possibly go wrong?. Could you review it and let me know if there are mistakes and what your thoughts are. I'd like to present this to a wider audience, including WP:MED. The next assignment begins 28th January. It is my opinion that it should not go ahead as currently designed. Indeed, I think that if such a large scale assignment is to be performed, then a radically different set of tasks should be chosen. Colin°^Talk 22:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and same to you. Will have a look. I am fine with it running if there is a Wikipedia who will volunteer to review ever edit that is made to make sure it is in compliance with WP:MEDRS.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

humpath.com

Hello Doc. No, it is not mine. It is a canadian webiste. The interesting outputs are the digital slides that cannnot be found yet by Google. I point only on pages with digital slides links. Best regards patho (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits to trauma section of Tranexamic Acid

Hi,

I was just wondering why my edits to the 'Trauma' section of the 'Tranexamic Acid' page have been removed...?

The CRASH-2 trial provided some really important results which I think are of interest to readers of the page. I also think that it is useful to reference the trial results published in the Lancet.

I'd be grateful for your thoughts, especially any advice on how this section can be expanded in a way that is acceptable to Wikipedia.

Kind regards, CtuLSHTMCtuLSHTM (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of dispute messages

The message on Schizophrenia clearly states:"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." The dispute is not resolved, and the discussion is still fresh (several contributions within last week). So please do not remove the message until the dispute is resolved. ViezeRick (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that you had not added anything to the talk page until now... And the other discussion involved something different... And your edits do more than just add a NPOV tag... And you are over 4 reverts in 24 hours... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to remove the pov tag, so it does not matter how often I revert the removal of the tag. The tag is not to be removed while there is an active dispute (wheter that be two or one disputes is irrelevant when it comes to removing the tag) ViezeRick (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC). Why are you opening a discussion about the same topic on my talkpage while there is already one on yours? ViezeRick (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those Gallstone image templates!

And now I can see it was a simple matter of premature ']]'. -Reagle (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation Project

Hey Doc: Seasons Greetings/Happy New Year etc. Nice to hear from you! I am in the middle of a career change now, and planning on (hopefully) moving out west sometime in the next 3-6 months. Therefore, my Wikitime is unfortunately going to be limited (again) for a bit. I will, of course, be very happy to do what I can when I can on the Translation project ... and will do it just for you, James :-)

Thanks for keeping me in mind, try to keep me posted on all the stuff you're doing. You do great and voluminous work on here, Doc, and I have TREMENDOUS respect for your dedication and efforts. See you around.

Your fan and buddy: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Cliff. Thanks for the words of encouraging. Good luck with your move.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Venous thrombosis

I posted at Talk:Venous_thrombosis#Factual_errors_reintroduced.3F, in case you didn't see. Biosthmors (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha, no problem. Its good revsion for exams

Storey246 (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Inline citation

I apologize for bothering you with a trivial matter like this. I’m working on rewriting Athletic training and I’m getting an error on a second use of the same reference and I cannot for the life of me figure out what I’m doing wrong. The page is User:ITasteLikePaint/Athletic training and I’ll write in a comment near the reference. Thanks in advance! ITasteLikePaint (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't seem to like the quotation marks you where using. I never use quotes in the ref names tags. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's silly. Thank you very much! ITasteLikePaint (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

No worries. The syntax can sometimes be a pain.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

I have answered you on my talk page. Please consider reverting back to my edit as there is scanty information on prevention. Please see: The greatest risk for developing schizophrenia is having a first-degree relative with the disease (risk is 6.5%) and A number of drugs have been associated with the development of schizophrenia, including cannabis, cocaine, and amphetamines. This is not original research simply math that shows the addition of genetic and environmental factors. Glennconti (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thus, it seems that cannabis can be conceptualized as a cumulative causal factor in some individuals, acting in concert with other vulnerability factors to promote the manifestation of the illness in some individuals who might otherwise have remained schizophrenia free. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2659306/

Doesn't the above confirm that "Children of schizophrenics might try to avoid substance abuse so as not to increase their chances of developing schizophrenia" and might be included in the article as a fact to aid in prevention? Glennconti (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We already state this on the page and do not need to state it twice.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure that a mention in the "Prevention" section is not warranted?Glennconti (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2012(UTC)

You could ask for others input on the talk page but that would be my position. Unless of course there is a review articles which stated that avoiding drugs/detox/drug prevention programs are useful for prevention.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and concerns. I have initiated a section on the talk page. Glennconti (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, happy to hear what others feel. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for mentoring me through wikipedia medical article updates. Just a question --- with your edit "While cannabis use is accepted as a contributory cause of schizophrenia by some" you are stating "some" while my edit implied "many". Is "some" really an accurate term to describe the current state of affairs? Again I appreciate your help. Thanks again. Glennconti (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going to be so bold as to change your edit to "many" from "some" based on the "now widely accepted" quote. Please revert if it is not accurate. Glennconti (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have the distinct feeling that I am a bull in the china shop as far as featured medical articles are concerned. Please be frank with me. Am I adding to this article or just making more work for other people to clean up? My last edit i had hoped was important but I don't want to do anything to jeopardize the FA status. Glennconti (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There might be some value to PMID 19748375 or PMID 18844804 for this. Also, I note that PMID 19609589 is clear that cannabis is neither a necessary nor sufficient cause, rather it is part of a complex interaction which is not well understood. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

vascular remodeling and mesenteric ischemia

I am sorry it should read "Recently, vascular remodeling has also been implicated in mesenteric ischemia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.19.158.188 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Note

I saw your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Help_setting_up_the_WikiProject_medicine.2FTranslation_task_force. and responded there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I set things up, and it seems to be working [3]. Please let me know if you run into any problems. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC delegate resignation

I'm back! [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

All smiles from me :-) Welcome back even though I hadn't really arrive before you left. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Dental avulsion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cell structure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

• Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

• News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

• In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

• WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

• Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

• Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

local allergic rhinitis

thanks! I'm shocked by how unknown local allergic rhinitis is, the allergists I've seen had never heard of it - so I'm trying to publicize it. That missed diagnosis must be affecting millions of people. Puffysphere (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Puffysphere

Translation

Ok, I will translate that page. --Sbassi (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful many thanks. Can you add your name here... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hepatitis C GA review

I've conducted the GA review and left comments regarding where improvements should be made. Please let me know if you have any questions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Pneumothorax

Reviews are fine, but I have noticed not every sentence is cited by a review, or at all, what is the threshold? I also am embarrassed about the buffalo chest section, that was meant to be more thoroughly written. | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 07:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No reference to Archibald Haddock? Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Psychology students contributions

Where is discussion about this taking place? Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

In a few places including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Classes_editing and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colin/Introduction_to_Psychology,_Part_I Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A question

I posted it under the first thread at User talk:Biosthmors. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks have replied.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

External Link to HIV

As a new user, I'm not sure why you deleted my addition to the external link section for HIV of adding POZ magazine as a resource. Was it because I am not an autoconfirmed user, or was it for some other reason? Thanks! Pozeditor (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Eleassar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ref for scabies

Wondering if you could provide a ref for your recent edit? " Except in infants and the immunosuppressed, infection generally does not occur in the skin of the face or scalp. " Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those well-known to be well-known things you'll find in almost any review. [5]

Infants and small children may develop lesions diffusely, but unlike adults, lesions are common on the face, scalp, neck, palms, and soles. All cutaneous sites are susceptible in immunocompromised and elderly patients, who often have a history of a widespread, pruritic eczematous eruption.

.

This is why scabicides in healthy adults are used only from the neck down, you know. SBHarris 05:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Review: Urinary tract infection

I have posted comments for the Urinary tract infection GAN. Feel free to visit at your convenience. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

YGM

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

--Errant ^(chat!) 23:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Odd request

Greetings,

This is a bit of an odd request, but what do you think about fully-protecting this page? It gets vandalized a couple times per year to no good end, and I seem to be the only one who checks on it on a quasi-regular basis. The debate is over, there's not much else to be said, seems like a place to use common sense, ignore the rules, and cite a whole bunch of policies that basically justify breaking the rules. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Back pain article, Classification editing

Dear Jmh649,

On December 26th, 2011 at 22:23 you reverted editing of Classification of Back Pain article. In the article Revision history you specified that you reverted it because, “Ah simply not true”. The problem is that all my edits (no exceptions) in the reverted Classification (which can still be visible here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vgladoun/sandbox) were referenced to mainstream medical American institutions, specifically American Chiropractic Association (ACA), American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), and American National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. These references are easily traceable so far. I am wandering, why mainstream American institutions’ information you labeled “Ah simply not true” and reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgladoun (talk • contribs) 18:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure the issue are more one of references:

1) http://www.acatoday.org/pdf/saga.ppt is a link to a ppt

2) http://http://www.acatoday.org/membersonly/jaca2/1985_0.pdf is from 1985

3) neither http://www.acatoday.org/pdf/BottomLine08.pdf or http://www.acatoday.org/content_css.cfm?CID=66 is peer reviewed

4) http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=A00334 is discussing sciatica not back pain

Will find some review articles per WP:MEDRS.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

question re: Herpes content removal

Hi jmh649, I hope I am addressing you in the appropriate forum. I believe that you may have removed the Herpes Gingivalis content I contributed yesterday. If so, please explain what I did wrong and/or how to fix what was wrong. Thanks, DentalSchoolProfessorDentalSchoolProfessor (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things. One is that we much prefer review articles. And two Herpes gingivalis is basically the same thing as Herpes gingivostomatitis which we already mention Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)