User talk:Doc James/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library

Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch. Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227). Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street. Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time) The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required! Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

• Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren

• News and notes: French language outreach, WikiTravel debate, and HighBeam reloaded

• Discussion report: The future of pending changes

• WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera

• Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals

• Arbitration report: Evidence submissions begin in Rich Farmbrough case, proposed decision in R&I Review

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20wmf01 hits first WMF wiki, understanding 20% time, and why this report cannot yet be a draft

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, I replied on my talk page. Postpostmod (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Collaboration with Journals

What I do is getting existing journals to release their copyrighted contents (or at least their images) into CC-3.0 license. I can lend a hand but I'm not familiar with the start-up process. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, they have absolutely nothing to do with medicine. They're from a journal that describes new species (so it'll benefit Wikipedia, Wikispecies, and Commons). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Education problem and potential RfC

Hi. I'm trying to draft an RfC related to reforming the WMF on English Wikipedia run education programme. It can be found at User:LauraHale/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Education Program. At the moment, it has a variety of issues and could use a set of eyes helping to edit and improve the draft before it gets taken live. Any help in improving the focus, making it more coherent, making the purpose more clear, having acceptable and a variety of solutions offered, and fixing the general formatting, spelling and grammar would be appreciated. --LauraHale (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I feel like I treated you harshly when you were actually trying to help me. You were right to point out that I was spending to much time on one article. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in something we are unable to see the forest for the trees, to borrow an old cliche. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries and look forwards to you expanding your area of editing to other topics. I have a whole bunch I could use help on here Wikipedia:MED/Translation_project --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Concussion ( Prevention)

Hello, I am very new to contributing to wikipedia so please bear with me. I am part of a graduate students who did a group project on concussion among professional athletes. Updating a wikipedia page was part of our assignment. After reading the concussion page, we thought it would be best to expand on the prevention section and gear it more towards athletes. After submitting the edit request on April 15, I read the comment you wrote about generally using references that are between 5-10 years old. My question is regarding to what the next step is in requesting our section to be added to the page. Should we update the references and resubmit another request? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbigroup (talk • contribs) 00:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied on users talk page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Your Last Message on my Talk Page

Tried to reply to your note there, in situ, but got an edit conflict and lost what I wrote you somehow. Hey - I absolutely understand your concerns about the student editors. You can count on me to defer to whatever you think best, because (a) I admire your work on here more than anyone elses, (b) no doubt in my mind you ALWAYS act for the overall good of the project, PLUS (c) you have helped me every time I've asked you. So let me know if I can - or if you want me to - "retract", or whatever you think is best for the project and I will.

Oddly enough, I was JUST getting ready to post you when your message to me came in. Put your "police hat" on and blast over RIGHT NOW to Thoracic outlet syndrome if you have a few seconds. One of two things is going on, I think - either an IP editor is trashing the article as we speak, or I'm hallucinating from being so tired. Have a look and, if warranted, do your "civil a$$ kicking thing" - you know, that voodoo, that you do, so well :-)~

Your friend and fan: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Someone had a bad outcome from surgery it seems and are now here to use Wikipedia as a soap box. Sigh. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thats what I thought, but I'm running on 0.01% cerebrum, and will be asleep probably before you finish reading this sentence. Have a good night, save a life or two. I will check on that article again in the morning. Thx again, brother. Best:Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Project Immunology

Sorry for the late reply, I am in the middle of exam revisions and haven't got the time to promote it or discuss it. My exams finish on the 3rd May, maybe we can discuss it then. As a doctor, I hope you can appreciate that immunology is a very fast growing field that integrates a lot of pharmacological, clinical as well as biochemical approaches. To list immunology as part of any of those projects would give an undesirable skew towards the topic. That's where I am coming from. But really sorry, but will have to resume the discussion after the 3rd May. Regards. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 13:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes no worries. I agree with you. The reality on the ground however is that Wikipedia is a small number of editors. If you had a group of 10 or 20 people who are planning on working on it I would be supportive. I just do not like seeing inactive project. Thus I agree with WAIDs suggestion to join as a Task Force of WP:MED --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Doc,

I've posted a lengthy reply over at WT:DYK, but I wanted to say that it's clear from your work and interests that no one could make a credible accusation against you that you were deliberately "pulling up the ladder" against new editors. That said, I do think the proposal you put forward would hurt some of the editors we really need—ones that are coming in contributing good, sourced articles, well along the learning curve, but not up to GA level yet. I think a better angle of attack to cut down on cruft in the DYK process might be tightening up the time limits. Right now, it looks as though once an article's been nominated, it can continue to hang in the review process more or less indefinitely waiting for the nominator or reviewer to respond. I think setting an expiration date (say, one week from date of nomination) might be a better way to flush the queue out. If you're going to write articles for Wikipedia, being able to cite proper sources and not violate copyright is basic, and you shouldn't be entitled to a DYK slot if you can't get a grip on those tasks. Choess (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds equally reasonable. Thanks for the note. When it comes to Wikipedia I tend to stick close to home and that is writing medical content :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Starbucks

We do not go to University because it is easy and Starbucks improved their sales when they charged more not less.

That sounds about right, but correct me if I'm wrong (and it is possible that I'm mistaken here), but didn't Starbucks improve their sales because they finally listened to their customers and improved their coffee? I seem to recall both happening around the same time, and in fact, it was the only reason I returned as a part-time customer (I frequent more local, mom and pop shops). Prior to the major changes in their coffee, I couldn't stand the taste. Was it 2007 or 2008 when they finally started improving it? Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Concussion ( Prevention)

Hello James, thank you for putting up the concussion prevention section. You did mention that it still needs some work. Can you please let me know what exactly it needs. I want to make sure I have done everything that needs to be done to make it complete. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbigroup (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen?

Hey Doc, regarding your comment on my talk page, you are welcome for my small contributions to the MDD article. I was wondering if you have seen this, Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access?? Might be worth signing up for if you don't already have access.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Literature. I have access to two very well stocked e-libraries. I will leave this to those who need it more. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited Gastrointestinal bleeding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aspiration (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) 10:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on the collaborative publication initiative. Biosthmors (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

• Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"

• News and notes: Help-space revamp, WikiTravel RfC, and Justin Knapp scores a million edits

• WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files

• Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content

• Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review

• Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Spammer

Hi James. The spammer you warned and blocked the other day is back and spamming. [1] Perhaps a longer block would drive the message home. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks blocked him longer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. You ask a volunteer to translate to Indonesian.

I'll try to help. So what should I do first? And when will I finish? Eddy bf (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

scientific journal proposal

Hi,

The link on your comment on Wikimedia Strategic Planning doesn't work for me. (maybe temporarily down) Anyway, I think it's a good idea.

Never is wikipedia going to get a sufficient number of academics to write "encyclopedia" articles in areas like psychology on wikipedia. Professional like psychologists might be willing to write if it were possible to do so "out of the straight jacket", if something like that were available here. I think if wikipedia is ever going to attract "academics", it's going to have to offer a forum that appeals to creative, ambitious academics. After all, academics don't need wikipedia. Even academic psychologists have "academic freedom" to teach and write about what they want. And wikipedia's insistence on "secondary sources" actually results in faulty, out-of-date information. Witness all the fro fro about "dimensions" and DSM-V. It's only psychiatry's refusal to use the statistical and testing expertise of psychologists that has left them in the dark ages re DSM-V. If academic psychologists want to write, they can do so and publish it in a journal (where they get credit and it "counts" on their CV) or write a book and sell it on Amazon with no nagging about "rules". That's the reality. I see it happening all the time. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It works now, so never mind. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two proposals on the table. One to create a journal that would host primary research as well as reviews of the secondary literature. The other involves publishing Wikipedia articles in top open source medical journals after further peer review. Both may be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth, count me in as MASSIVELY in favor of both of these journal ideas. Best regards:Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Something along the lines you describe above I think is necessary if wikipedia is to increase its attraction for more sophisticated academic contributors beyond the student type. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

TB Copyedit/Tweak

Ready for your re-check. Probably still a few goofs. Will look again in a few days, but for right now, its "back at you" :-) Best regards:Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Also got to gastroenteritis, so that one is ready for your re-check too. What else you got for me? Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate all your help. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

COPD-Ecig reference

I understand (somewhat) why you viewed my reference as non-high quality. The study itself has been approved to be published. It is a legitimate study and people with COPD should know about this option. It has helped many I know with this disease. It does not cure the disease but if a smoker is unwilling to quit and if the available cessation options have not worked (which...the side effect list is just down right heart breaking on them) it should be known to them as a safer alternative. Once this study is published would it be a high quality reference? Bellamour (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We define high quality references per WP:MEDRS and these are review articles or major textbooks. Please use these. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia.Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 16:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth

• News and notes: Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities

• Recent research: Barnstars work; Wiktionary assessed; cleanup tags counted; finding expert admins; discussion peaks; Wikipedia citations in academic publications; and more

• Discussion report: 'ReferenceTooltips' by default

• WikiProject report: The Cartographers of WikiProject Maps

• Featured content: Featured content spreads its wings

• Arbitration report: R&I Review remains in voting, two open cases

• Technology report: What Git means for end users, design controversies and pertinent poll results

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Romanian translation of medical articles

Hi, you said that I should wait until the medical articles are translated into Romanian. I could do that myself. I'm not shy of complicated medical language. I would rather translate them from English than from simple English. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure you can begin with any of the article listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/RTT. When you are done the translation can you add it to the table? I will let TwB know. Which article are you planning on starting with?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will begin with Schizophrenia, since it is first on the list. I have registered with ProZ.com, but how do I get access to the Translators without Borders site? Or should I translate it in my user space? Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

References at Birth Control Article

Some of my references were new the study relating birth control to cancer was from 2009 and wikipedia Wikipedia:MEDRS 's further reading stuff from is mostly from 1997. It does not say I can't use them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBGeorge77 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The recent study you used was not a review article or secondary source it is a primary source. Please read review article with respect to what these are. Yes the page needs to be updated. But adding more of what is already there is not going to make it better. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

I e-mailed you. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from Bengali Wikipedia

Hi,Doc James, Many many thanks from Bengali Wikipedia for Streptococcal pharyngitis. We are trying to traslate most needed medical articla in Bengali, Please have a look at bn:WP:MED - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 05:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

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.

Pine^(talk) 11:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

GAN

Thanks for your initial feedback on the Patient participation page. I'll work on making your recommended edits to the article. As for the Citizendium article issue, I'll make sure that all information from that website, which must have been added by the previous editor of the Patient Participation article, is cited properly. Frohmanm (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me know when you are done. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. Regarding your first point about primary sources used on the Patient participation page, I do not find this to always be true of Wikipedia articles. For example, the page Confirmation bias, which achieved "Good Article" status, used solely primary journal articles from peer-reviewed sources. Psychological knowledge is generally formulated based on scientific articles as the main source of reliable and authoritative information. So, moving forward with the editing process, I will certainly be sensitive about using review articles when appropriate and available, as you suggested, but I will not exclude other credible and important sources solely because they are primary sources. Thanks again for your input. Frohmanm (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was a couple of years ago. Our referencing guideline is here WP:MEDRS. There are a number of great textbooks on the subject including al.], ed. by Sarah Collins ... [et (2007). Patient participation in health care consultations : qualitative perspectives ([Online-Ausg.] ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press. ISBN 9780335219643. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Are these universal Wikipedia standards or just applicable to medically based articles? I agree that a few textbooks would be useful, but it's clearly important to have a wide range of reliable sources, which for obvious reasons, cannot come solely from textbooks. Frohmanm (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes all of Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. They help make sure due weight is given to the subject matter. See Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Outcome Measure

Pleasant good day to you Doc James,

Convexrook here. I made an addition to the Stroke page on outcome measures. This is an assignment for me to complete some form of editing on a topic we have covered. We have been limited to the number of words we can add to any one page. My question to you sir is where did I go wrong with the information I added and what can I do to make it a valuable contribution? I look forward t hearing from you soon. Thank you very much and have a wonderful day.

Sincerely, Convexrook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convexrook (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

1. References must be recent review articles / major textbooks ( not primary sources ). Please read if you do not know the difference.
2. Wikipedia has a certain layout of sections for diseases related articles (both with respect to heading names and ordering) [2] I would recommend that you read all of this page and maybe print it out and give it to your teacher.

Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

One free pat on the back with every purchase...

I just wanted to say I think you do a good job here. I have no special credentials or anything, but I've seen your comments on several issues, not only the WBB thing, and you always seem to have a solid, level-headed, attitude. I find that refreshing around here, and maybe just a tiny bit inspirational for me too. It makes a lot more sense now that I've seen your user page and know that you're a Canadian too . I Couldn't find an applicable barnstar. Instead, a typically more modest Canadian barnstar? -- Maelefique^(talk) 23:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Class assignments

My contribution was for a masters-level assignment. It would be greatly appreciated if you could put it back on. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.184.247 (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you where logged in. I assume that this is the article on Parkinson disease that your class has decided to edit? We use review articles which are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles as references per WP:MEDRS. I have created a subpage on which you class can edit here Rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease. Wondering if you could put me in touch with your prof so that I can provide some feedback. Many thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Improving Immunology Articles

Hi Jmh649, If you'd put your mind back a month or so, there was a discussion on the medicine talk pages about the proposal of a WikiProject Immunology. I have been having exams since then and so have not been active here, but now I am back. It seems the proposal do not have enough people to be a project, so now I am just happy getting an informal group of editors to improve articles in the Immunology category. If you are interested, please visit here and just start editing, and tell other people about this. I will do my best because I think there really are a lot of gaps in these articles. If you require any assistance please don't hesitate to contact me and all comments for improvement are welcomed. I hope you are interested and hope to be working with you soon. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 00:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Great I will be getting to asthma and allergy eventually as part of [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, do you mind just adding the articles you are interested in to the list here, I really want other people to think more people are involved and get the snowball rolling! Thanks again! Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 01:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Link

I've posted some questions to you, in the subject thread you started on Will Beback's talk page, about the email you, Arbcom, and Jimbo all received from Will Beback in September 2011 containing his allegations about TimidGuy. I wanted to make sure you were appropriately notified so you could respond in full. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey James - I stumbled on this thing earlier, and went to bat defending you, perhaps cutting my throat with some comments that might have seemed uncivil (to some). I then a couple minutes later went back to clarify my comments (and tell them that were it not for you I would have quit editing here about 15 months ago), and ... when I previewed my 2nd round of comments and tried to subsequently post them for real, it said "This page deleted by an Admin while you were editing", and I lost ALL my typing/post (GRRRR). WTF? Everything OK with you?

Let me know whats up when you can, if you want to, if it matters, otherwise NEVER MIND :-)~

Very best regards from your friend and fan:

Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cliff. Yes life is good. Off for a run in fact. My comments are simply an attempt to hold members of arbcom accountable. Something that is required in any system with elected officials. I am sure this will all come up again at the next arbcom election. Okay back to writing content.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Sclerosis

You deleted my addition to the MS page. Although there may have been some information given that is applicable to patient application, it is evidence based. I am in a graduate program and worked for 2.5 hours to gather this evidence for a course assignment that is due on Tuesday... I would appreciate it if you could revert your deletion for this reason... plus the fact that I have added a lot of additional, pertinent information not already present.

Sincerely Jacob (Physical Therapist Candidate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.carter.pt (talk • contribs) 20:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Have provided an in depth response on your talk page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

--P. Sampson (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Doc James,

Thank you for all of your help thus far and I appologize for creating more work for you. Your contributions are greatly appreciated!

I am not sure whether or not our professor is aware of the Wikipedia educational program. I will inform her of your message on Monday.

Thanks again,

Yes I am sure you have all realized contributing to Wikipedia is a little more complicated then people imagine. How many students in your class? I notice that your prof had a similar project last year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stroke

Just a note: I think you are to WP:INVOLVED to have protected Stroke. WP:MEDRS does not have the special BLP exception allowing an involved editor to protect. Note that I think your edits are 100% correct, but I think you should have brought the matter to RFPP rather than protect yourself. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not really edited this page and am neither a member of this class or its prof. thus I do not consider myself involved. Protection was needed to simply protect Wikipedia. I have been trying to provide advice to this class of students however they are rushed for time as the term comes to the end. We do have a policy on coordinated editing --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes

• News and notes: Hong Kong to host Wikimania 2013

• In the news: What does Wikipedia call an expert; and untruths in biographies ... again.

• WikiProject report: Say What?: WikiProject Languages

• Featured content: This week at featured content: How much wood would a Wood Duck chuck if a Wood Duck could chuck wood?

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision in Rich Farmbrough, two open cases

• Technology report: Search gets faster, GSoC gets more detail and 1.20wmf2 gets deployed

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Dementia / See also/ navigation templates/progressive aphasias

Hi I have been looking at many of the Aphasia related articles, to help me understand how the acquired disabilities relate to the corresponding developmental issues that affect my family, and those who contact the support organisation I help run. I have become aware of the various Progessive aphasias which result from or are apart of various forms of dementia, and that there is little mention of the aphasia in the dementia article. I did try to add a lionk via the existing See Also section, which you deleted. I have just looked at a link you gave to Wikipedia:MEDMOS which mentions navigation templates. I have looked at the templates on the Dementia article and again there is no mention of aphasias. I am not really into templates and their construction, so my question is should there be an aphasia section in one the existing templates or a new aphasia template dolfrog (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure lets put this is one of the templates.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

osteoporosis

Thank you for your comments on the article on osteoporosis. By the way, I notice your userpage says "In real like, I go by..." . Shouldn't that be "In real life.." ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up. Yes it should be. Type to much on too little sleep :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI

See the deleted article Doc james. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Apractagnosia

Hi I just came accross this Apractagnosia a real mess, do you know anyone who could have a look at this article dolfrog (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There are some google books https://www.google.com/search?q=Apractagnosia&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Re Hotbottlerash.JPG

I think the image you uploaded is of a condition technically called erythema ab igne. Would you consider remaining the file? Does it matter? Thoughts? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes feel free to rename. You are indeed correct and I think that is the page this image is on. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

My 5,234th request for your help

Hey Doc:

Hope this finds you and yours well. About a month or two ago I saw a news ticker flash a blurb about a study showing that getting monoclonal antibodies into cancer cells is much easier and more efficient than previously thought. You wouldn't know anything about this, maybe have a cite, or know who to ask to get a guess or some opinion on this subject?

It got a TON of press for a day, and I meant to check it out, but it slipped through the cracks ... suggestions?

In particular, I'm wondering about a MAb specifically targeted against a mutant CK8 protein, with 2 or 3 or so consecutive missense codons, and amino acid substitutions, in the protein sequence gene. There is a type of lung cancer (rhabdoid carcinoma) that has prior work published suggesting that this mutation is common therein in the linker portion of the filament, causing buidup of the mutant protein. Was thinking of this as a therapeutic target. Who should I talk to? Thanks my brother!

Gimme something good and I will copyedit three ... no, FIVE ... articles of your choice as a reward (a/k/a "bribe") for your humping for me :-)~

Best regards:Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There ara a number of papers on the subject of monoclonal antibodies for CA such as this {cite journal|last=Glynne-Jones|first=R|coauthors=Mawdsley, S; Harrison, M|title=Antiepidermal growth factor receptor radiosensitizers in rectal cancer.|journal=Anti-cancer drugs|date=2011 Apr|volume=22|issue=4|pages=330-40|pmid=21346551}} Have not seen anything about getting them into cells though will look when I have time. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

• Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication

• News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic

• WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse

• Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week

• Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

• Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

?

Hi I am sorry I don't understand the resource is from pubmed and is a genuine clinicla trial???Chrisandbev (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

?????

Hi I am sorry I don't understand the resource is from pubmed and is a genuine cliniclChrisandbev(talk) 12:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC) trial???Chrisandbev (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

?

The statementChrisandbev (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC) that I added to comes from the same resource pub med and it is allowed ??

?

Still confused the artical I added to is also from the same primary source.I is a assessment up toChrisandbev (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC) 2009 which is out of date. I am simply trying to get a more up to date balanced view on the topic. My understanding of Wikipedia is to present the facts and update them as things change

?

I think I understand what you are saying re secondary source, however if that is all that can be used than half the articles in Wikipedia are going to be out of date as it could take years if ever for some other group to collect and ratify clinical trials etc taken over a period of time and present/publish them ?Chrisandbev (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

ok

So could I use that clinical as a stand alone view and place it elsewhere( appropriately) in another section of the article, so that it doesn't come across as conflicting it is simple stating a fact with clinical proof.

ThanksChrisandbev (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify

Firstly thanks for your time answering, If I understand you correctly If ie: someone has written something and included that article in theirs or referenced it then it becomes secondary so I could then use it ?

The reason I am asking is that I am pretty sure if I search the net enough I will find it linked or used elsewhere.

ThanksChrisandbev (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

got it

Hi, Could I then correct the lead in as it currently stops at type(A) and as you probably know the rest of the statement on the assessment is relative as diabetic neuropathy can course chronic low back pain so I think it should be included.

Currently reads:(TENS) has not been found to be effective in chronic lower back pain.[62]on Wikipedia.

But reads :

Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) is not recommended for the treatment of chronic low back pain (Level A). TENS should be considered in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy (Level B). on (62)the secondary reference article

Thanks

ChrisChrisandbev (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

artical reversion

HI I object strongly to you completely reverting the entire artificial. I apologize if I removed something inadvertently and will replace it. I have studied TENS and used it for over two years ( have you) Chrisandbev(talk) 15:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)and spent 3 weeks correcting this article to get it into a more balanced perspective

artical reversion

HI I object strongly to you completely reverting the entire artificial. I apologize if I removed something inadvertently and will replace it. I have studied TENS and used it for over two years ( have you) Chrisandbev(talk) 15:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)and spent 3 weeks correcting this article to get it into a more balanced perspectiveChrisandbev (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

reverting

You are being ridiculous, I only asked you about inserting the rest of the clinical trial report in the low back pain section I didn't change it.

Put your ego away and consider what wikipedia is meant to be about and the effect it has on the man on the street who might rely on the information in it. The article on TENS was completely out of whack as you could see from all the notations, I certainly feel I have improved it considerably. If there are things you are not happy with adjust them but do not delete the entire article!!!!

Because you are a Doctor in ER it does not make you GOD which is what you are trying to be when you behave like this. You are certainly not considering what is best for all Chrisandbev (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, another user reverted your edit here and labelled it as vandalism, which it wasn't. I reverted their edit and advised them to read WP:VAND but again, they have removed it labelling it as vandalism. Can I advise them to read something else, we can't have editors going round labelling perfectly respectable edits as vandalism. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks yes this user appears to be interested in promoting TENS. --Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 20:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just seen the messages they have been sending you on your talk page. Must be frustrating!--Chip123456 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not too much of an issue. I am sure that it will get sorted shortly. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 20:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And if they're promoting, potential block? --Chip123456 (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

promote tens

I am not here to promote TENS and if you bothered to read what I have put in you will see that !!ie ref toprofessional medical research on the way it works + ref to over 2,500 medical trials + ref to a public forum ofunbiased consumer reviews.

You on the other hand who has never contributed to the article seem to feel you are an authority on the subject?

I have laid a complaint with the editor for vandalism which I consider it to be, and repeat : If you are not happy with some of my edits let me know and I will change them if they are valid or discuss them with you. You are also obviously entitled to make changes yourself, but i do not feel you are entitled to delete all my edits especially when you say the previous one was better given that I am not alone in the view that it was full of errors if you bother to look you will see that there were numerous other editors who felt the same — Precedingunsigned comment added by Chrisandbev (talk •contribs) 20:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

genital warts

I went to the article on genital warts which I sense you are in charge of.

The pictures there are worse case scenarios that seem designed to scare/disgust people. This is a problem because it doesn't educate the regular person on identifying warts on themselves. I have a strong stomach and couldn't look at the illustrations.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastlakeview (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No not in charge. Do you have images of less severe cases you think would be more appropriate?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)