User talk:Doc James/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Update on Amph citations

Hey JMH, I figured I'd give you a quick update on the references that concerned you.

I made a change to the (still) censored text in the source in the adderall page ADHD section. To save you the trouble of going to that page source and looking at it, the material is currently:

According to a review by Millchap et al, "a multicenter, placebo-controlled trial of amphetamine treatment for ADHD in Sweden found significant improvements in attention, hyperactivity, and disruptive behaviors and a mean change in IQ of +4.5 after more than 9 months of amphetamine [use];" however, it is noteworthy that the population in the study had a remarkably high incidence of comorbid disorders associated with ADHD. Consequently, other long-term trials of stimulants in ADHD with less comorbidity would be expected to show greater functional improvements and fewer side effects.

Edit: Forgot to ask if this looked fine to you, or if you thought it still needs additional changes.

I haven't had the time to find secondary medical sources for the Amphetamine-PEA content, so I've kept it censored on the amphetamine page source in the meantime.

Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Reflist for the adderall page edits:

References

Thanks. Please note that a book is not a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Good catch. I'll correct the wording asap. Thanks, Seppi333 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Re. Consent

Thank you for clarifying the issues surrounding use of patient X-rays.

Regarding the Head CT that seems to have sparked this, I think one of the major arguments is that the country of origin is Sweden, and therefore other countries' medicolegal policies do not apply... imo, it's overzealous legal-minded people intruding where not needed. I see you posted that you are writing an essay to make clear issues of consent and copyright for such images. It's an interesting read so far, and should help to oppose this kind of thing happening in the future. Lesion (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes and have been speaking to a number of journals about what they do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

MOS and Adverse Effect Lists

I think it's better to do lists when it comes to side effects. I find it much easier to read adverse effects when they're in list form plus it appears to be more logical when it comes to adverse effects as there's a distinction between the types of adverse effects (e.g. by frequency and organ system)

Long lists of side effects without context such as how common they are, are less useful. I am not sure of an easy solution either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I could use meta-analytic, Micromedex, Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines and Australian Medicines Handbook data on the incidence and severity of side effects to improve said data. Fuse809 (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree that it would be good to provide more detail.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bacillus clausii

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bacillus clausii requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Bacillus_clausii. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes if you look back in the history it is fairly simple to find where the copyright issue was added and delete it. Will fix. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

• News and notes: Third time's the charm: the FDC's newest round of funding requests

• WikiProject report: 18,464 Good Articles on the wall

• Featured content: Hurricane Diane and Van Gogh

• Technology report: What can Wikidata do for Wikipedia?

• Traffic report: Twerking, tragedy and TV

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

207.253.195.3 (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice on where to put some new tables on APDs

On the antipsychotic drug wikipedia page I am currently preparing three new tables on the relative tolerability, efficacy and pharmacology of all (atypical and typical) antipsychotic drugs currently in clinical use and I am wondering whether I can expect you deleting it or moving it provided I provide high-quality secondary sources (e.g. meta-analyses, Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines, BNF65, AMH 2013, Goodman and Gilman, PDSP (for binding affinity data), Micromedex, etc.) to support claims made in said tables. Fuse809 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I might alter them... What are they going to look like? I think one of these papers was recommending that we stop using the atypical / typical division. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Go to the antipsychotic page now and you'll see the first completed table -- the tolerability table.Fuse809 (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes some issues with caps and the placement of references. Have adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The second (efficacy) table has been completed so ya might want to have a look. Fuse809 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The third and final table (the pharmacology table) has been completed so feel free to make any edits you feel necessary in order to make it conform with the wikipedia Manual of Style.Fuse809 (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thks, have altered a couple of things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Rape article -- Myth that sex with a virgin can cure HIV/AIDS

James, what do you make of this and this edit? I'm asking because the latter edit casts doubt in the Rape article that the myth exists, even though it clearly does exist, and the previous edit casts doubt that many young girls are raped because of the belief in it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We have lots of sources that support its existence. How common it is or how good the evidence is, I do not know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and for this tweak; the editor might re-add what you removed, though. I'll likely make the text clearer that the myth is believed in some parts of Africa; "many parts of Africa" is what has not been proven, and so I don't much mind "claimed" being used in reference to that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this and this edit that I made to the paragraph are definitely improvements. And I appreciate the thanks you gave me via WP:Echo on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

One final edit for context. I'll now leave that paragraph for others to tweak if they feel it needs tweaking and/or additions. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

FGM

Hi James, question on the FGM talk page here about two sources, if you have a minute. No rush, though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Lithium

Hi Doc James you put the history section to the end of the article. Is there a special cause why you did this? You also deleted several spaces in the history sections between words and wikilinks. --Stone (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Even though the Lithium article is not a medical article, it does have some medical aspects. Given the latter, and that Doc James usually edits medical articles, perhaps he was following a structure similar to WP:MOSMED. Wikipedia medical editors often consider the signs, symptoms, evaluation, diagnosis, etc. material significantly more important to document before the etymology, history, culture material; however, there are exceptions. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines is only a small guideline but I tried to follow it in most of the elements articles I edited. If there is a special reason for the changes it might be OK to restructure. --Stone (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I would generally put history near the end. People are more interested in the current use of something IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The over 100 element pages should have a unified appearance if this is possible and only changing a few is not the perfect solution. I will try to ask the people in the wikiproject elements for their advice.--Stone (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, agree with the importance of consistency. I would support history at the end, just before society and culture. That is what we do here at WPMED. If consensus is to switch back I am also cool with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:ELNO

Hi, you made a series of external link deletions earlier, all of them similar to this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiple_myeloma&curid=292137&diff=574384404&oldid=574312018 I wonder if you could explain your reasoning for removing them, as I don't understand how it relates to ELNO. Thanks very much. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 22:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This charity is attempting to spam itself onto Wikipedia. We are not a collection of external links. We link to DMOZ which does that.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's promotional for that group. Look at the editor JNevil's other contribs as well, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes and there is also an IP. Deal with lots of charities trying to do this. We are not a list of charities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. In that case, Why have you left a whole series of other promotional links while deleting the links you deleted? It isn't consistent. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 22:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Which ones did I leave? All that is left here is DMOZ [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, only DEMOZ on that link, but what about this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_myeloid_leukemia#External_links ?? There are charitable organisations in that list, I believe the majority are asking for donations to support their work in the same way as the deleted charity? I certainly wont be reverting any of your edits, it is just that I still cant see it. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Have removed the other charities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

and here? (I think you are wrong on this) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_lymphoblastic_leukemia#External_links ? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 00:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Added DMOZ there as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

and yet you didn't remove the ACS right next to it. Odd. I've tidied up Hairy cell leukaemia in the light of this thread.

The CLL page is the reason I created an account on the Wiki, and it was because of a sweary dispute about external links. I'm sorry if I have been a little spiky about this. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 06:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What was the dispute over? Typically I leave cancer.gov / the NCI as they are under a public domain license Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The dispute was about having external links to blogs, patient forums, and ACOR etc. etc on the CLL page. As a patient, I felt passionately that the wiki should link to useful resources for people like me. A friend (only a internet friend who is an admin at a patient forum) at the time got really sweary and the talk page record got purged as I recall. I was very very upset at the unfairness of it all. The blog concerned was written by a Prof who was probably the world authority on the subject. He was a bonkers christian as well, so his blog featured his christian views too, but when writing about CLL, he was scrupulous about being evidence based. It remains a fantastic resource. Things have changed, and that forum has become a hotbed of Alt-Med crap, and the wiki policy was proved correct. However, you and I have, in accordance with wiki policy, deleted some useful links containing solid information for patients. The ACS and Cancer Research UK have superb info, and people who come to the wiki for info wont be clicking on a link to DMOZ, because they aren't internet nerds, and have never heard of it. I'd like to see the policy improved, but cant see much chance of it happening.

I note that your "cancer.gov / the NCI personal policy" leaves good stuff for the patients to get more info from, and I appreciate the difference between them and the charities we have deleted, but in the UK, those charities fulfil the role that cancer.gov / the NCI cover in the USA.

I do hope that you forgive my rather intemperate tone earlier in this thread. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 22:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Happy to discuss. DMOZ / Open Directly Project often links to the main sources. Not sure if people go to it or not. If we consistently link to them those who use WP a lot will figure it out I am sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

References

I told you a long time ago that I would let you know about discussions to improve the reference dialog in VisualEditor. A workshop is going on here (see talk): mw:VisualEditor Reference Dialog. Regards, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hookworm vaccine/16187734

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hookworm vaccine/16187734, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.mytherapypractice.com/bugs_drugs_allergies/hookworm_vaccine.htm.

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.) MadmanBot (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The copyright of this publication is CC BY. We need to teach madmanbot about this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Checking on medical images..

I'd like a feedback if my request here was acceptable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Whoisjohngalt&oldid=574579841

As you are better qualified in handling 'ethics' concerns, your feddback would be appreciated.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Signed patient consent not required unless the image is identifiable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

• Op-ed: Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Look on Walter's works

• In the media: Fox News: Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia

• News and notes: Last call for Wiki Loves Monuments; Community–WMF tension over VisualEditor

• WikiProject report: Babel Series: GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!

• Featured content: Wikipedia takes the stage

• Recent research: Automatic detection of "infiltrating" Wikipedia admins; Wiki, or 'pedia?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		To Doc James, for investigating the copyright concerns of x-ray images. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Seconded! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(possible) copyright violation of your image

Your image here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_tongue_infected_with_oral_candidiasis.jpg looks to have been copied to http://yeasthomemedicine.com/clear-white-tongue-oral-thrush-yeast-infection-2/ and specifically http://yeasthomemedicine.com/wp-content/uploads/et_temp/oralthrush-5590_184x238.jpg

Just to let you know. PS I will probably not respond to messages left here or on my IP talk page. 41.204.73.50 (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes every image on that page is a copyright violation. It however is not a reliable source. I really only follow up when it is major books, journals, of academic publications that should know better. Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey doc,

maybe you can have a look at these edits and the editor. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

They have removed secondary sources and replaced them with primary ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Needle exchange dispute escalated to a request for mediation

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Needle exchange programme

Please add any relevant thoughts or comments. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My position is of course that we need to accurately reflect the best available evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible collaboration

Hi Doc- I just sent you an email...I am very interested in the Wiki Med Project at UCSF with the medical students and would like very much to do something similar here on the East Coast at our institution. I would be delighted to hear back from you and to dialogue more about this. Peace- lbsatterly(Dr. Lynn-Beth Satterly) satterl@lemoyne.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbsatterly (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds excellent. Lets connect and discuss what you have in mind. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiki

Jim- Thanks for the info...will check out more tomorrow...Lane suggested a Skyp or video conference..sounds great to me...say hi to SF for me...one of my favorite cities...have been there five times...do you ever go to that truffle/ coffee shop just up from the warf en route to China Town? -lbsLbsatterly (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It is just my phone number that is from SF. I am actually Canadian. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for IP user block.

Hi Dr. James, I'm requesting an IP block for the user I have provided here [[2]]. This user has made denigrating and personal attacks towards the user Sb101. I thought I'd notify you as you're an administrator I am familiar with and I'd rather try to hit this nail on the head. LT90001 (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Link does not work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, indeed it isn't working. User was blocked by request from Sb101, thanks for your attempt at help :P. Kindly, LT90001 (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"coat rack" not "co tract"...

Hey Doc, re this, "What you are proposing is a co tract." -- the idiom is "coat rack" and not "co tract". I've seen you use that phrase a few times, and each time I'm scratching my head for a few seconds before I figure out what you mean. It's one of those funny phrases you hear and think the words are one thing when it's actually another. I used to say "It's a doggy-dog world!" before I finally figured out the idiom is "dog-eat-dog"... Zad68 18:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? I am wanting to say "creating a new article that covers the same material is one we already have" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Project in translation

Dear Sir, I am a student in translation (Master's degree 2nd year) and I want to offer my help for some translation tasks. Feel free to contact me on wikipedia. Sincerely yours. M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myterna (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Project in translation

..thanks for replying so quickly. I can translate from English into French which is my native tongue. I am currently attending a « Masters Second degree in Translation” class at French University of Western Brittany. For some training purposes students are allowed to support organizations like yours by translating texts from English into French as target language. As students, we must also work for free and in conditions which are supposed to be as close to reality as possible. If our proposal interests you, we will be grateful to let you acknowledge our work by an exchange of mails with our “fake translation agency” that will be open only for this semester. In advance, thank you for reading this message. We are looking forward to hearing from you, if you are interested. Besides feel free to ask us for support in other fields than medical domains. Sincerely yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myterna (talk • contribs) 06:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

I really don't think "very high mood" is sufficient to describe mania. To me, and I imagine most readers, "very high mood" conveys the sense of something similar to hypomanic euphoria. and sounds really quite pleasant for all involved. It does not even begin to describe how unpleasant, and indeed terrifying, mania can be, from the viewpoint of both the sufferer and those around them. There's no sense that irritability or agitation might be involved, either. The Mania article contains this:

“ Mania varies in intensity, from mild mania (hypomania) to full-blown mania with extreme energy, psychotic features, including hallucinations, delusion of grandeur, suspiciousness, catatonic behaviour, aggression, and a preoccupation with thoughts and schemes that may lead to self-neglect. ”

which I think is much more descriptive of the power and terror of full-blown mania. -- The Anome (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've just posted this to Talk:Bipolar disorder. Can we discuss it there, please? -- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference with page numbers

This is regarding my edit on Common cold. Even I do not like page numbers beside references. But tell me something, rather than mentioning each page number as a separate reference, what else can be done? As a matter of fact, I was planning to look up the newer reference and map it to the page numbers of the relevant topics. But you intervened before that. I would be glad if you could suggest alternative ways. Diptanshu^Talk 12:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing really wrong with the way it is. It works in all other languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

See the citation style for Kruger 2008 in Ice age using Template:LoM1 Harvnb. The case is similar to Common cold. Suitable modifications may be made in the article. Diptanshu^Talk 15:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not supported across all Wikipedia languages. Does not work for example in Guarani. [3] I am trying to use a style that is as simple as possible, one that most Wikipedia languages support. This makes the translation aspect of the project we are working on easier. Anyway general consensus is that the main contributor to an article gets to determine the ref style. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not strictly Wikipedia-related.

As a Canadian Quack (just a term I use for all docs it's not to say you's all do quackery) I thought that you would be the one to ask whether there's any prescribing guidelines for psychiatry that you Canadians use. I know of the British Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines in Psychiatry and of course there's formularies such as the USP-NF, BNF and Australian Medicines Handbook but I'm curious as to whether there's a Canadian equivalent you're aware of. Thanks for your time. Fuse809 (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. Often we use the DSM. We have the CPS as the legal text of drug interactions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiousity (this isn't for personal medical use this is just an attempt to see how far off the mark my own expectations are of what you would like do) could you tell me what you'd use to treat any random 20 year old patient patient that comes in with the classic signs of psychotic unipolar depression (e.g. hallucinations, a recent suicide attempt, delusions of persecution, etc.) with a HAM-D of say 25 (i.e. severe) and PANSS positive score of 45. No family or personal history of obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, long QT syndrome, or other relevant physical illness.

My guess: Administer 2 mg aripiprazole IM and 10 mg fluoxetine sublingually (liquid)

or

Administer 5 mg olanzapine IM and 10 mg fluoxetine sublingually

Reasoning: In this sort of situation I doubt that a patient would be willing to orally take his/her medication so IM or sublingual routes while the patient is sedated would probably be best. A low dose of aripiprazole is used due to the potential pharmacokinetic interaction between fluoxetine (a potent CYP2D6 inhibitor) and aripiprazole (a CYP2D6 substrate). Olanzapine may be used in this case due to the established efficacy of olanzapine/fluoxetine in major depression and the lack of family or personal history of obvious contraindications (such as obesity and diabetes mellitus).

Note: If I'm annoying you with this question, feel free to say you're too busy. I have a thing for over talking to quacks due to my general love of studying drugs.

I am an ER doc rather than a psychiatrist. I would typically admit the person to psychiatry for an assessment and to provide them a safe environment. If at risk to self or others under the mental health act if needed. To keep them calm I typically use midazolam and sometime haloperidol. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

• Op-ed: Commons medical diagnostic images under threat from unresolved ownership

• Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more

• News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities

• Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia

• Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war

• WikiProject report: U2 Too

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Refs thing

I'm afraid I didn't quite get what ya meant on my talk page. I'm guessing you mean that it's easier to read and notice changes made to references if they're spread out over a number of lines? Fuse809 (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It is easier to notices changes to the text when the ref is NOT spread out over a number of lines. See these edits as an example [4] as opposed to these [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bipolar Disorder Page

I noticed you reverted my edits due to the quote thing. That I understand, but I also altered the first paragraph's definition of bipolar disorder and I'm wondering what was wrong with it? Fuse809 (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

We should be writing our leads at least in single to understand English. WHat was with that quote? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A "very high" mood isn't an entirely accurate descriptor of mania as it can also present with agitation. Plus bipolar II disorder doesn't have any manic episodes at all and hence I felt that the existence of hypomania needed to be mentioned. As for the quote it was to give the reader some context into how it affects real people and not simply just a textbook definition of bipolar. I realised it might be controversial due to its lack of neutrality so I accepted it being removed. Fuse809 (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hypomania is also an elevated mood. Would "elevated mood" be better? The lead is just to summarize the article in simple terms. We have the whole body of the text were we can go into detail. We can even create subpages if the body is not sufficient. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

An even better descriptor, in my opinion, at least, would be elevated/agitated mood. That way we can cover mania with agitation too without making the wording too difficult for the laymen. Fuse809 (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay agree would be happy with an "elevated or agitated mood". Please change if you like. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Made a slight other change to the first paragraph but I doubt it'll be a problem since it's not that confusing.Fuse809 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doc and Fuse, for a variety of reasons I will not return to participate in editing this particular article. However I thought you might like to have a look at my PubMed Bipolar research paper collection which currently includes 76 Reviews, many of which are fairly recent, I hope this helps dolfrog (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Vaccine

Hi, You are right we should include the Cochrane reference. But there seems no disagreement that we should expand the page so as to provide more information for public health decision makers? Please let us know whether you agree that we revert and continue to to expand the page while including the Patricia’s Cochrane reference? David & Lorenz — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeliveringOralVaccineEffectively (talk • contribs) 11:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

We at Wikipedia use secondary sources rather than primary ones preferentially per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doc, You didn't even give me a chance to revise my entry i was just working on this entry. Please let me finish the page before you erase our work? lorenz — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeliveringOralVaccineEffectively (talk • contribs) 13:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please use secondary sources rather than primary ones. Please stop removing the secondary sources that are already in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your feedback

Hi jmh, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at the amphetamine article and give me some feedback on improving it to FA quality. I've already requested a peer review for FA criteria and GA nominated it; but, I'd really value your input since you have a rather solid track record for improving articles, are familiar with the subject matter, and are familiar with all the relevant policies.

To quickly summarize the major changes I've made to the article since your last edit on the article page, I:

• merged and reorganized several sections;
• rewrote the pharmacodynamics section and its subsections;
• added sections with content/citations (interactions and synthesis) and images (synthesis);
• deleted several older or primary sources and the associated content or replaced the source with a new secondary source;
• removed a large chunk of the article and used it to create a new page on amphetamine (and meth) history/culture.

Assuming you have the time and are willing to look it over, any feedback (specifically, anything related to MEDMOS/MEDRS and FA content-related criteria, or even just what you think should be added/omitted/edited) would be greatly appreciated. :)

Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with that. - Seppi333 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

adding carfilzomib to MM proteasome inhibitors used

Carfilzomib one of two FDA approved proteasome inhibitors (very different from protease inhibitors) for Multiple Myeloma - Bortezomib is the other. Multiple IMID drugs are listed under treatments for MM - why should multiple proteasome inhibitors not also be listed?

98.218.50.44 (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have linked to the term instead. An exhaustive list is not needed in the lead of the article on MM. This is supposed to be an overview. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)

Edits on Migraine page

Thank you for the move of my edit and for your comments.

No worries. Please pass my suggestions on to the rest of your class. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)