User talk:Doc James/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Revert

Hi Jmh649, I noticed you reverted the "article alerts" page on WPMed. I'm guessing this was an accident, as it is pretty useless to see PRODs and AFDs etc from last month, so I've reverted back to the up-to-date version. --LT910001 (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks yes, not sure what happened. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Telling me to look at policy when you yourself have failed to observe it is a smarmy and incongruous exercise. I have already discussed it. YOU are challenging it without discussion. I will keep reverting this everyday until you start discussing this. Now do I have your attention? -- Jodon | Talk 12:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I started a RfC and did discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Revert

I would like to know why you keep reversing the information on Omega-3 fatty acids, Cancer: risk of prostate cancer when The American Cancer society cancer.org and the American Cancer Centers, National Cancer Institute have the exact opposite position? http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/omega-3-fatty-acids-linked-to-increase-in-prostate-cancer-risk Petmo100 (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Explained it on the talk page here [1]. Lets continue the discussion there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For stopping the massive copyright issues with User:DrMicro. Alas it will take forever to clean up but blocking and beginning reverts is progress. Wizardman 22:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. All a little disheartening. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

I should have just used quotation marks; I was in a hurry and got sloppier than usual.

Okay. Paraphrasing is better than quotation marks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dumb Question

Hey Jmh, how do I format the user:WPMED on my own page? Somehow mine is formatted differently and I'm unsure how to fix it. Any advice on that would be appreciated since it looks pretty bad ATM. Thanks buddy! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

How is that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! I had no idea to put in those specific characters. I appreciate the help! Let me know if there's anything I can help you with or any interesting projects you're working on at the moment. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Interested in working to bring an article to GA? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I will when I have more time to edit/focus on a given topic. I'm relatively unfamiliar with the criteria used to assess articles to determine if they are GA status or better so I will need to review those beforehand. Did you have a specific article in mind? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a bunch I am working on here Book:Medicine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Attribution

Will attribute.

Thanks. Maybe deleted the material and than readd it stating what page it came from. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Regret

I just tried to insert a new information about cataract and cataract surgery. This is very useful to share some new classification and new procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pardianto (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all it is copy and pasted from another source. Second is that if it is your material has it been published in a high quality source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

• Traffic report: Google Doodlebugs bust the block

• Featured content: 1244 Chinese handscroll leads nine-strong picture contingent

• Special report: FDC staff raise the benchmarks for activities, impact, planning, and governance

• News and notes: Trademark at issue again with the Italian Wikipedia and wikipedia.it

• WikiProject report: The world of soap operas

• Discussion report: Commas, Draft namespace proposal, education updates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Smoker´s melanosis

Thank you, I will wait and see if the picture of the melaonocyte will be OK to still be on Wikipedia. Also thanks for your help to direct me to the right page to answer your letter. I am still learning! Yours, SK10DPB — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK10DPB (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Percutaneous vertebroplasty

I don't see justification of semi-protection except panicking over growing newer editors before enabling. Lower to "pending changes" instead? --George Ho (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

There are some real names and companies behind these edits. Semi protected due to significant issues of COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Well done, look forward for more edits from you. Danger^Mouse (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

For which? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Colon cleansing I'm sorry about the drama on there. I have given that user the chance to prove her point, and she didn't.Danger^Mouse (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2013 (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.

Emailed you entire history of me and that user. I know, I should have walked on and ignored it. Sorry for all the trouble.

Danger^Mouse (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Burn Article Very Helpful

I simply wanted to say I found the "Burn" article extremely helpful. Not being an expert I cannot comment on its technical merits, but it was quite useful to me as a layperson - comprehensive, thoroughly cited, and easily understood. It was exactly what I was searching for. Mary Chipman (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear :-) That is what we are working to achieve. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:Page view data

I'm looking into this. Based on my initial testing, I don't think HTTPS is the problem. If you're interested, you can see my notes here. Mr.Z-man 03:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Abortion

Whilst I appreciate your long back history on medical articles, your current stance on abortion is dreadful editing, and very poor wikiquette. This has been an active dicussion at talk, and we have a proposed wording which fices major problems in the current lede. Your sudden 'swoop' appearance after discussion, because you don't like one of the sentences smacks of article 'ownership', and you haven't even had the decency to make good input on talk - just RfC it. I think you should consider your actions, and reflect if you could be more constructive to this debate. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would you not wish a RfC and wider input? You do not consider the wording clumsy? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with an RfC per se, although in my experience they are more apt to bring stalemate than BRD, which is unhelpful on a topic like this, nor that the wording can be improved (almost always the case), but I do object to this being a discussion to fix the more major problems, which resulted in an improved version (appreciating that it might not be perfect), which you then revert without ever taking part in the discussion. The new version should stand, and the RfC and talk improvements should be on that version, not the old one. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You do not appear to have consensus to make this change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

ADHD

Doc, are you at UCSF this week? If so, I will wait to take this on, but the addition of the "up to 50%" here concerns me relative to optimal/better sourcing for a vauge statement of that nature. I can attempt to address that myself, but I am always limited to what free full text I can locate, so I need help in fixing it.

Because of your edit, I realized that article is highly cited to a less-than-best source, European guidelines focused on adults. First, it is 2010 and we have more recent. Second, the Europeans aren't exactly at the forefront when it comes to childhood neuropsychiatric disorders (in ADHD, most roads lead to Boston and at least in the realm of TS, one of the two top UK researchers just acknowledged in a journal article that the Europeans aren't in the forefront). Third, an article focused on adults in ADHD brings in a whole nother realm of issues: individuals who are adults now (and particularly in Europe) did not likely have a childhood diagnosis or receive adequate treatment, so we need to be careful with prognostic statements about outcome based on adults who were unlikely to have benefited from adequate treatment as children. And, because of the European healthcare model, ascertainment bias is a bigger issue there in terms of sample populations and the number of comorbid issues likely to show up in clinics. One sample, there is more:

• Lee SS, Humphreys KL, Flory K, Liu R, Glass K (2011). "Prospective association of childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance use and abuse/dependence: a meta-analytic review". Clin Psychol Rev. 31 (3): 328–41. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.006. PMC 3180912. PMID 21382538. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

We can do much better than make parents of children today (prospective, retrospective) fearful that their children have a 50% chance of ending up in substance abuse because we're quoting a 2010 European guideline, with vague "up to 50%" language, and we have many, much better, and more recent sources. I could go on about the problems in the European healthcare model that lead to that kind of writing, particularly when focused on adults today who may not have received childhood treatment, but ... do you or User:Zad68 have time to help with this? It needs to be fixed, but I have restrictions as to what sources I can access. My preliminary searches on what free full text is available confirm to me that "up to 50%" is implying a level of certainty that doesn't seem backed by other reviews in this case.

But more, I think that entire article, besides being outdated, needs to reflect better, higher quality, and more recent sources. In brief, considering the European healthcare model, we shouldn't be looking to European guidelines relative to adult populations as the major source for a childhood neuropsychiatric disorder, when we have much better and newer journal reviews from the top US researchers, who are leaders in the field. The editor who incorrectly added a primary source about nicotine was correct in that recent reviews say what s/he was saying, and review source should be added for that, and the vague 50% removed ... if you and Zad can help, we need to fix this, but I don't have access to enough sources. I'm no longer convinced that article should be a GA. If you are able to corral a UCSF student into working on this article, I would be willing to help-- my assumption is that the student would be able to access sources I can't access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

From a European perspective it is US research and health care model which is not so reliable. dolfrog (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dolfrog, are you comfortable with that "up to 50%" statement? (See here, where UK TS research Rickards acknowledged that the US was the center for TS research-- I was glad he came out with that, since I always knew it :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What you need to understand is that different cultures may provide different statistical results due the variations in their own populations, how an issue is diagnosed, and the ability of all the population to access good quality health care to obtain a diagnosis. And the motivations of the various medical professionals and researchers may also vary between cultures. dolfrog (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We do not disagree! Which is why a blanket, but vague, statement about up to 50%-- based on only European reports-- isn't optimal. IMNSHO, with TS, because mild cases are rarely ascertained in the European medical model, they see a much higher incidence of comorbidity and severe cases than in the US. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This is substance misuse we are discussing rather than Tourette's right? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's at Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, regarding the comorbidity with substance abuse,this edit, adding the 50%, based (correctly) on that source, but I'm not sure the preponderance of sources bears this out. Need more journal research, which I can't do, but I gave you a sample review (above). We got off on TS because of my experience with US v European research in that realm, which is not unlike the ADHD situation. I'd like to remove that 50% for now, it it's OK with you, but think we could stand to really rework that article to broader (than European) sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly feel free to remove until more evidence is found. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would not have used that source to support a "50% have substance abuse" statement. The underlying stuff the source cited seemed to indicate that at a particular point in time, samples taken from those with ADHD had estimated 50% positive test for substance abuse. I don't think that "present in 50%" quite summarizes that accurately. This is a separate issue from whether Kooij is a good-quality source in the first place; it was well-used in the article when I passed it as GA and I didn't think twice about whether it was a MEDRS-compliant source of sufficient quality to support GA content... honestly if it's not, I need to learn how to figure that out so I don't make that mistake again. Zad68 03:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, I've been extremely busy with that other stuff, and didn't want to remove something added by Doc without checking in. SO, are we agreed just to remove the 50%, and leave the rest? That would satisfy me, although we might also use the review I listed above to satisfy the earlier editor who wanted some mention of nicotine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc! Zad, I just realized that in my haste this morning, I did not address your question. That is a good source, I would generally not be uncomfortable using it for anything except that particular example, and there are cultural differences wrt neuropsychiatric diagnoses that it is helpful to be aware of. I wouldn't oppose that source for most information, but I am cautious when there are differences in US v European/UK prevalence or comorbidity estimates because of different ascertainment methods. If I were to try to write ADHD to the FA level, I'd probably include info from both sides of the pond, but I wouldn't take a European source at face value on the "up to 50%" (by instinct, I would balance that info with what US sources say). Sorry, but the Europeans just have more comorbidity because of diagnostic and ascertainment issues, I don't think even that source really supports such a broad statement, and there are more recent secondary reviews that cover that particular issue more carefully. Hope this helps! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

While I'm here, Doc, one UCSF editor is planning to add a literature section to Major depressive disorder? That article is already huge (way too big at almost 10,000 words prose, and that was an issue at its FAC). Has that editor got plans to work with User:Casliber? And I hope they understand the sourcing issues involved with writing that kind of content-- it can be tricky. At TS, I had to split that kind of info off to Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. How does s/he plan to fit more content of that nature into an already huge MDD? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes am going to try to address that tonight. Am going to try to convince the students to try articles that are not already at GA/FA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

German Acupuncture Trials

Hi Doc James! Would you mind looking into this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GERAC. Your input would be much appreciated. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Even if we don't seem to agree. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

A comment.

Three things here after reading the 3rr report you made on fergus:

• WP:MEDRS is not a policy - it perhaps should be, but it isn't.
• Your usage of the mantra "WHO, CDC, FDA" is basic strawmanning, since the NPOV problem discussed wasn't with their views.

That is not a nice way of handling things, and it is quite contrary to how tags and perceived (real or false) and WP:NPOV dispute should be addressed. --Kim D. Petersen 22:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If this is about electronic cigarette, there is clear consensus to follow MEDRS there, so it doesn't greatly matter whether MEDRS is a guideline or a policy. Lesion (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree there is clear consensus on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I referred to your 3RR writeup which stated that you thought that MEDRS was a policy - it isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 23:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you are correct it is a guideline. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Traffic accident

Ok Thanks for that, if I had the time, I would have looked more closely at the article. In my opinion the road trauma issue is actually a separate article, as the overall long term affect on communities at a social level, as well as the individual trauma (and its potential to be almost generational and epidemiological phenomenon) (1) the 18-25 year range morbidity rates as higher than any other cause of death in some communities around the world (2) the lifelong trauma for a significant numbers of accident victims, and community cost.. to me are separate from the actual traffic accident issues... traffic accident as the event, road truama as being the de facto logical extention. Hope I make sense. Just dont have the time to create the article at this stage. cheers. satusuro 13:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Should all be part of a single article IMO.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Plasma cell gingivitis / plasma cell cheilitis

The images have again been deleted by another admin with identical rationale about no "ORTS ticket"

• 

• 

• 

• 

The original uploader might still be around, last edit was on 16/11/2013. Please advise when you have a moment free, Lesion (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks looking into it. User: Nthep appears to be the deleting admin.[2] May need to take this to AN. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I also noted this [3]. If there is anything I can do please let me know. Lesion (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Jump on in. This is a significant attack on Wikipedia's medical content. There are people attempting to build an encyclopedia and there are people attempting to destroy one. More seem to be interested in building per here [4] but some blocks may be needed to be handed out to protect this place from those who appear to have no intension of abiding by consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your involvement on SNP is indicated

I strongly object to the circumstances surrounding the creation of Sodium nitroprusside (medication), as I described at User talk:Fuse809. Article splitting is to be discussed on the talk page of the article to be split (Talk:Sodium nitroprusside), but this editor just went his way, and collegiality/consensus was ignored. Highly inappropriate behavior.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree best to be discussed on the talk page. Article does not appear to large if the two are merged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Listen you are the admin, I am not. So you need to step in and get this character to backtrack. He sees you and some sort of authority figure that authorized this nonsense. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What I said was "I would improve that section first and than if it becomes to big create a subpage as you mention" Will look at it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You also said, "Great and than add a main tag from the other article" in response to me saying, "I have expanded the section in my sandbox and basically made it all read for me to create a new page like I proposed. Do you think it is a page I should create?" which I took to mean that you had read the article in my sandbox and it was adequate for me to create the proposed article. Fuse809 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I do not really see either as an issue. Let me look at it. On second though might be best to add the two together. Fuse809 are you okay with combining the two? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I suppose, anyway it's already been done see Sodium nitroprusside, another admin beat ya to the punch. The main thing I disagree with is that drugboxes display drug information better and the article only has a chembox which, while it can display some drug information it doesn't display all that drugboxes are capable of. Fuse809 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree that drug box is better. Lets continue discussion on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent changes to the page has certainly made me happy. So I'm good. Thanks for your help on this page. Fuse809 (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Another move request

Can you please move along with the page history the article Stomach rumble to any of Abdominal sound, Abdominal sounds, Bowel sound or Bowel sounds, all of which are redirected to the former. Please change the redirects accordingly. Reason: Bowel sounds is a commoner and more scientific term accepted both in the medical as well as lay community. A still more scientific term is Abdominal sound but Bowel sounds is more widely and casually used while Stomach rumble is simply a lay man's term. I leave the judgement of selection of the preferable term to you. I do not think that there would be any issue with this move too. Diptanshu^Talk 15:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me know after you move the article and I would make appropriate changes to the article to suit the name. I have suggested a move as I do not think that there is any justification for two different articles to exist amongst the mentioned terms. One amongst the latter ones really needs an article and has a wider scope. Diptanshu^Talk 15:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved to bowel sounds. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have modified the lead to suit the new title. I will modify the rest of contents later. You are welcome to participate too. Diptanshu^Talk 08:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Plasma cell gingivitis

Yes, I did review the previous discussion, I also checked the existing OTRS ticket and quite a lot of searches of OTRS to see if tickets in respect of these images had been submitted - to which the answer was no. The uploader of the deleted images did not state they were the uploader of the ticketed images, as they used only their on-wiki name on these files. NtheP (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that their is no OTRS permission for this image [5] It is marked as such. It was uploaded by the user in question. Authorship is now listed as Anders Hedin now that it has been restored. The other 4 images are also authored by Anders Hedin. Common sense would indicate that they are same. And that one could maybe give the person a couple of days per the tag. Maybe someone at ORTS could even email the user in question regarding permission for the other images? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the melanocyte image is correctly licenced and confirmed via an OTRS ticket, but that is the only ticket currently existing for any of these five images. The other four did not have anything identifying them as being authored by Hedin, just the up loaders on-wiki name with no indication that they are Hedin. F11 deletons get 7 days grace, these have had 13 now and still no tickets filed by the uploader whose responsibility it is to provide the necessary evidence, not for me or anybody else to go on speculative inquiries.

I see you have restored two of the images, I suggest you redate the F11 tag to expire in another week or so or else the same scenario might arise again as they still say they an be deleted after 14 November, Dianna and I aren't the only admins to patrol the file CSD categories. NtheP (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

They are listed as authored by Hedin. Take a look at this one [6] Notice this bit of text "Previously published: Swed Dent J 1994 18:117-124" Take a look at the author list on pubmed [7]. Notice that first author is Hedin. Anyway will update. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Anders emailed through permission for the other four images to OTRS this morning. All restored and marked with the permission. NtheP (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad we finally got this clear up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sodium Nitroprusside

Hi, I think that the current page on sodium nitroprusside is insufficient to fully elaborate on the medical uses of SNP and hence I propose that we make a new page entitled, say: Sodium nitroprusside (medication) much like the Lithium (medication) page as the Lithium page is more focused on the element and its physical and chemical properties where the medication page is more concerned about its medical uses. I know I can do this myself but I felt like asking an administrator like yourself for your opinions before doing something that could end up a big waste of time for myself (e.g. due to the page being deleted due to admins like yourself disagreeing with my point of view). Fuse809 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Have change the heading to medical use. I would improve that section first and than if it becomes to big create a subpage as you mention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have expanded the section in my sandbox and basically made it all read for me to create a new page like I proposed. Do you think it is a page I should create? Fuse809 (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Great and than add a main tag from the other article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that this page has experienced some reordering that's not in accordance with WP:PHARMMOS is this kosher due to its other uses or what? Fuse809 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Misleading comments and goading on Electronic cigarettes.

Regarding this comment[8]:

I moved it to the section on addition, which is were it fits [9] better. Part of what was reffed to the source was removed here [10] and the rest reworded here [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The reversion that you say "was removed here" was about something completely different, the only commonality between the addiction text and that removal is that it happened to use the same reference.

As for the second "rewording" - that to my eyes looks like a straight-forward synthesis by user:Seppi333, who combines cited text with tertiary sources (per WP:RS) to come to a result not supported by the original references, but instead what he'd like it to say.

I also find this revert[12] rather curious. Why didn't you implement the alternative text that we'd already agreed upon in this discussion[13] instead of adding fuel to the edit-war?

user:FergusM1970's behaviour is certainly not my cup of tea, but i really don't think that people are giving him any consideration of WP:AGF... it in fact looks rather like he is being goaded instead.... something which gets added weight by you not mentioning user:CFCF's also rather obvious breach of 3RR here[14]. --Kim D. Petersen 16:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Add on top of the missing 3RR mention of user:CFCF, that you didn't reproach hir for the rather obvious inappropriate canvassing. --Kim D. Petersen 17:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes we use WT:MED to deal with issues and bring more eyes to a situation when there is a dispute. We also use RfCs. I have done both of these which is what is recommended. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no problems, for me, in people using WT:MED - there is a problem though when the request is formulated the way that it was, such requests for extra eyes must be formulated neutrally per WP:CANVASS. (notice my usage of the term "inappropriate" :)) --Kim D. Petersen 03:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

With so many reverts and so little consensus before they occur it is hard to follow things. This edit [15] does indeed show discussion on data around nicotine being moved from lower to high in that section and changed to a different ref. It was than added first again here [16]. I restored some content here [17]. It is likely that I am looking at the wrong diffs though :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Have discussed this edit on the talk page [18]. I agree with the wording you propose. I am not convinced that it implies benefit per [19]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

With respect to User:CFCF. He had not been warned for 3RR on his talk page which is required before a 3RR listing. He reverted his last edit and has agreed not to do it again. IMO that is enough. Also occasionally I sleep and missed his 3RR until just a few hours ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually it isn't required, 3RR just requires that the user is aware of 3RR, which CFCF was[20], and which i would expect from a user from 2006, who also commented on the 3RR thread, it is usually a nice thing to do though. But at that point he was already at 4RR's btw.

I know that i don't come across very well here, i'm really a nice guy :) But i quite frankly was appalled by the behaviour on (both sides) at the e-cig page ... and i've edited extensively in the climate change area! (including a rather not nice trip with ARBCOM) I hope there are no hard feelings, i think we made for a rather good exchange and consensus building at the primary source thread. I just wish that people would consider explaining themselves a bit better, and generally WP:AGF. --Kim D. Petersen 03:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is not required but my practice is to always warn someone and give them time to change before bringing them to the notice board. You will notice that I warned Fergus and gave him time to change before bringing him there. Am happy to discuss proposals to make improvements to the article as long as they are based on high quality secondary sources. Your last find of that review article was good. If consensus is achieved content will stick. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Glass houses

I live in one. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Spondylolisthesis

You might want to take a look at this one, 11 substantial edits in as many minutes by four new editors, with minimal edit summaries. Looking at their contribution histories and the sandbox edits they have I'm wondering if this article is being used by some sort of student project. NtheP (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Massive WP:MEAT, appears to be Cal Poly, mixture of primary and secondary sources and a formatting mess. I've been asking the USELESS WP:ENB to point us to a template for querying/welcoming student editors for days, no response-- they're too busy on their coffee breaks. We need to give up on them and develop our own template for WP:MED that: 1) queries if they are students (similar to one I've seen used but for which no template has been identified); 2) points them to WP:ASSIGN, and 3) points them to WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS.

Regular editors cannot go a day without encountering dozens of them to one of us. It is not possible to continue this way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Did it myself. {{subst:Welcome medical student}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I only saw it as I glanced at new user acitivity and saw a lot on the same article in the short space of time. Temptation was to rv all and possibly short term semi-protection of the page. I tend to stay away from medical articles as WP:MEDRS imposes, understandably, higher standards than would be accepted elsewhere and even as a science graduate (30 years ago) I don't pretend to have an indepth knowledge of them. Now I've seen Sandy's approach above I'll drop that new template into my copy of Twinkle. If I tag any editors is there a page within WP:MED or elsewhere to say "I think article X us being used for an assignment?" so one of you specialists in the field can investigate and action, if necessary? NtheP (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Bullying#RfC: Template links

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Bullying#RfC: Template links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No opinion really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

...

Then just move the ref back to the appropriate place. Deleting the rest is unnecessary. I have personal experience that doctors medicate for those also seeking therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk • contribs) 12:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes so what you have added is original research. Please read WP:OR. What some doctor does is not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)