User talk:Doc James/Archive 62

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

You made hard to justify, large-scale reverts of my edits

Please state your intentions. I provided necessary clarity by adding 1-2 words to graph captions which were ambiguous and misrepresentative to people who read them in the article (the problem you can read about on the talk page of the graph). Either or it would have been fine for a matter of readability. There was no reason to revert all of them except for vandalism or motivation to conceal the nature of the information. C0NPAQ (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with how it was before. And the material you added was incorrect. Ref says "We developed and explored the feasibility of the use of a nine-category matrix of harm, with an expert delphic procedure, to assess the harms of a range of illicit drugs in an evidence-based fashion." While a questionnaire was used [1] it was not the only method. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the author of the graph writes (who must know) and I read the fuzzy abstract myself you quoted that from. Do you got the full paper? If so I would like to see it. Also check out my blog that no one reads, where I insulted you immaturely: http://being-human-sucks.blogspot.de/2014/02/the-sad-wikipedia-shitdrama-truth.html C0NPAQ (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Btw, even if he used his ultra 8-dimensional holographic wave function effect matrix he doesn't include real data or anything like it. Its still just a compilation of opinions aka questionnaire results. C0NPAQ (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Checked the paper again and there is full text available. What I said is true, I still don't know what you are on about. Read my blog to see what is pissing me off here. C0NPAQ (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Per the paper "Having established that this nine-parameter matrix worked well, we convened meetings of a second group of experts with a wider spread of expertise. These experts had experience in one of the many areas of addiction, ranging from chemistry, pharmacology, and forensic science, through psychiatry and other medical specialties, including epidemiology, as well as the legal and police services." and you summarized this as "like psychologists and policemen"

I did not write that in any article and this is not what the issue is about (neither is the credibility of the author the issue, who was criticized many times for his stuff if you read my blog ..). The experts are not named and no one knows about the distribution of those. The mere fact that people who obviously cannot asses the harm and dependency potential of drugs any more than John Doe with google can was worth mentioning on the talk page and not an article. Additionally I summarized it as "experts like psychologists and policemen", not denying that they probably can be called experts. C0NPAQ (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

These methods are used as this is an "area where issues and effects are very broad and not amenable to precise measurements or experimental testing" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you even see the graph or are you blind? It plots "physical harm" vs "dependence" of drugs. No matter how you obfuscate that by naming your questionnaire 9-D harm matrix assessment, you cannot turn just the sheer opinions of people about that into meaningful data that is by itself representative for the values. It doesn't make any sense unless you mention that it is a poll result, like other pages on wikipedia already did reasonably. The real question here being, why you do put so much force against my edits, which are equally readable and understandable but succeed in mentioning a tiny fact more (of which the validity is established here)? It's one word more. I obsess about it because I don't want people to be deceived by the presentation, which has high moral value. Honestly, what's your motivation? C0NPAQ (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Leprosy

Is it just me or the statement "Symptoms that developed include" is not right? I was thinking it was supposed to be "Symptoms developed include" as a condensed version of "Symptoms that are developed include". I am sorry if I'm wrong. Thanks. --BiH (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it not "Symptoms that developed include:" the correct version? The other version does not sound correct to me. I could be wrong.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes what was there was wrong. I have changed it from "developed" to "develop". That should address it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

hehehe.. Thanks and sorry for any inconveniences I have caused. --BiH (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Mis read what was written there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Atopic eczema

Hey, could you give me a link to the WHO recommendation where it is stated that this term should be used? Then I will also change it in the german wikipedia.--Biggerj1 (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I was mistaken. The ICD actually uses the term atopic dermatitis but says both may be used.[2] Thus I moved it back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Medical translation

Hello. I noticed that you mentioned that we got a prof in China wondering about how he and his class could get involved, which I believe that will greatly improve our work. Could you please tell me his contact or tell him to contact me? Thanks a lot. BTW, sorry for late in reply, I'm in school during weekdays that cannot reply quickly.Xiaoxing Ye Talk to me in zhwiki 13:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Hi. Thanks for the advice. I'll aim to use secondary sources in future. Please feel free to delete any of the primary sources or websites I've cited if you think these are inappropriate. Alan Merrit (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just if you could replace them with secondary sources when you have time. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'll work my way back through them. Thanks again. Alan Merrit (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

• News and notes: Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge

• Technology report: ULS Comeback

• WikiProject report: Countering Systemic Bias

• Featured content: Holotype

• Traffic report: Chilly Valentines

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

your reversion of my edit of the section heading

Hi Doc - you labelled your edit "more to the point" - was this an intended pun ? what point exactly ? The USA urollogical association gave prominence to the danger and negative outcomes of even clinical circumcisions within the USA but you may have some additioinal point that has so far eluded me - pray tell all.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The heading was fine before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Paracetamol and Asthma

Hi Doc:

Am running into a little trouble reaching consensus on language for a potential causative role of paracetamol in asthma. Its quite possible that we're both splitting hairs, but wondered if you could take a look and offer your thoughts. Discussion on Talk page. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure let me look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc,

This has been reverted again and at this point I'm probably in violation of the edit warring rules if I flip it back again. I'll withdraw and leave it to you to decide what is best. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all your efforts on acetominophen. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sarcoidosis

Hi, James. I'd like your input on the sarcoidosis page, see I've taken it into my sandbox to make some touches up, in accordance with WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. Is there any additional changes you would suggest to the page? Fuse809 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It is easier for me to follow if you just edit the main article rather than in your sandbox. "Person" rather than "patient" should be used per WP:MEDMOS

I does not need to state "In a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial (RCT)" one can just state the results based on review articles. Part of writing for a general audience.

The lymphatic system is part of immunology. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made those adjustments. I also agree with your implication (i.e. due to your edit of the sarcoid page), namely, that the see also section is kind of useless in this case. Fuse809 (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just one other thing. Do you think the article (i.e. sarcoidosis) now fulfils the requirements for a good article? Because I do. The only primary sources in the article is in the treatment section where I only mentioned future treatment directions and used a couple of primary sources because no secondary sources existed for the topic covered. Fuse809 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Few points:

1. We need a history section
2. We need a society and culture section
3. The lead should summarize the article in 3 - 4 paragraphs
4. How often does it progress to pulmonary fibrosis and death?
5. Any estimate of the number of people affected globally?
6. Could use some simplification
7. Would move some of the treatment section to a section on research
8. Wouldn't bold these in the lead "Besnier-Boeck" but in the history section.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I think I have enough info to make a history section. As for society and culture section well I don't really know, I know that it's mentioned on the TV shows Scrubs and House. The besnier thing, it isn't of my doing, it's an artefact put there by some other user. Simplication, I could do, and the lead, yeah I agree it needs some simplication. I shall get to it! Fuse809 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

For the society and culture section I am thinking about info like, what is the cost of the disease? Are is there a special day for the condition? Prominent self help groups? Controversy etc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's a special day for the condition. As for controversies, well there's always the fact it is more common in support workers that were involved in the clean up after September 11. I have modified the lead, care to have a look? Fuse809 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes the controversy around the existance of the disease in Sept 11 workers would be good.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any estimates on how many people are affected worldwide. What do you think about how the p;age is developing so far? Fuse809 (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Would use "cite book" rather than "cite ISBN" We also need page numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Glycyrrhizin

Hi, James. The glycyrrhizin page is currently rife with poorly sourced material and other problems. I am trying to improve it at the moment and I am sending you this message to ask whether it would be appropriate for me to change the chembox to a drugbox. The reason why is that I have found some pharmacokinetic data for the substance. Fuse809 (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it used as a medication? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

In Japan and China it is widely given intravenously as a treatment for hepatitis C. Fuse809 (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If it is used as a med yes a drugbox sounds like a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey James, thanks for the rearrangements and trimming edits on Psoriasis. It definitely looks improved. I've been staring at it so long and it's nice to get another pair of eyes on it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I pretty much finished incorporating the suggestions you made on the talk page if you want to take another look at it. Only the signs/symptoms part is left and that's in progress. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Maybe next time before you want somebody blocked for 6 months, read all the information beforehand, will ya? QG didn't skew the facts by something he wrote, but by something he willingly omitted. I've explained this at the RfC/U from the beginning, in this link: Talk:Acupuncture#Edits on "Legal and political status" vol. I. And one more thing: if you think QG's user conduct is ok - fine (however, how do you explain WP:AN#Chiropractic then?). But remember his conduct is what is discussed in the RfC/U, not whether you agree with his general opinion. I'm not your enemy. I'm certainly not a FRINGE pusher (take a close look at my edit history). I'm just disgusted on how some of us think that the end of keeping WP free of (perceived) quackery justifies the means of being incivil, tendentious, and disruptive. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked through a bunch of diffs. They were either old, were of good edits you two were trying to paint as bad edits, or were other editing support QG. So no. Come back when you have proper evidence to present. People who have done nothing wrong get dragged to all sorts of places here on Wikipedia. This frequently happens especially when one edits in a controversial area.

I take it than that you do not see anything wrong with the evidence you have provided? While I guess we will agree to disagree. This does not mean that we are enemies. I appear though not to be the only person you have not convinced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way IMO the most important conduct is 1) are you using high quality sources in line with WP:MEDRS 2) are you formatting those sources properly by using cite journal templates 3) are you paraphrasing the content sufficiently

Looked at some of QCs edits and he was doing all three. Many of your edits also seem reasonable. This was however was without a reference [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that WP:CIVILITY doesn't mean much to you when it comes to conduct... Anyway, the RfC/U is about me alleging WP:Disruptive editing by GQ... According to what you wrote that doesn't seem to bother much but maybe you'd like to look that definition up anyway (since you're participating in the RfC/U already and all). However, if you don't find the evidence I provided convincing, and if you think QG is one of the "people who have done nothing wrong", well yes, we will agree to disagree, and that's what RfC/Us are for. You not thoroughly going through and/or my evidence, and then accusing me of false claims is another thing, though. And what got into you to demand a 6-months (!) block for me? --Mallexikon (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There continues to an unsupported / poorly supported claim. This has not been withdrawn Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2#Skewing_the_facts_because_of_anti-acupuncture_bias There does not appear to be any move to separate the old from the new evidence.

Speaking on WP:CIVILITY you make this comment "disgustingly obvious attempt to skew the facts" which is sort of on the line.[4] And it is the evidence you are using to support "Skewing the facts" bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are correct I should have said "unsupported claims" as I have not really determined if they are true or false. Have clarified.[5]

Middle 8 was leaning towards an "indef ban". Seemed reasonable to put the other parties up for review aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed at ANI. See Here. QuackGuru (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Glycyrrhetinic acid

Hi, rofl, yet again I need to ask your opinion. The glycyrrhetinic acid page's name does not reflect the INN of this drug which is enoxolone. Do you think I would be justified in moving the page? Fuse809 (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes move to the INN. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yet again there's a redirect page so I need you to do the move, please. Fuse809 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you must have missed this message as I see you've done edits since I left this so I'm hoping a second message will grab your attention. Fuse809 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved it already? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, rofl. Sorry. Didn't see that. Thanks. Fuse809 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hi Jmh649, can you revert your edit ? See Talk:Birth_control#Reverted_edit Thanks, KVDP (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I replied. I do not think that image is due weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of MEDRS and durability

The arguments here seem to be a bit of a stretch. Any suggestions? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If the policies are from 50 years ago. We need to at least say they are. But it looks like this was done. What is the concern? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response

Dr. James, many thanks for your response.

May I email you to continue this discussion? What is your address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roguemed87 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

These a button to the left that says email user. If you click on it it will email me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS talk page

I raised a question over there on which your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. At the bottom of the page, MEDRS and Toxicology. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about class of our group project

Official title of the class is Movement Anatomy. We're learning about the muscles in our body and which movements they cause. Our group project was to choose a research topic dealing with muscles and/or overall movement. Our group chose cerebral palsy. Shankguam (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably a good place to start is by reviewing the content that is already there. Also we have a number of guidelines including WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDHOW to help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Medical question

Hi. I see you are an M.D. I go to 12th grade of High School, a some-kind-of medical secondary school where we go to become nurses. (There are also some other departments such as those for laboratory technicians, pharmaceutical technicians, sanitary technicians, look up.) Anyway, I had this oral examination in Internal medicine, I didn't know the answer for this question ″What can be seen by biopsy in Chrohn’s disease?″. So I'm looking for a reference. I couldn't find the right answer, so can you give me one? Cheers, Alex ^{discussion ★} 21:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The sections on pathophysiology and diagnosis discuss this to some extent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

• Forum: Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

• Featured content: Odin salutes you

• WikiProject report: Racking brains with neuroscience

• Special report: Diary of a protester: Wikimedian perishes in Ukrainian unrest

• News and notes: Wikimedia chapters and communities challenge Commons' URAA policy

• Traffic report: Snow big deal

• Recent research: CSCW '14 retrospective; the impact of SOPA on deletionism

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

hi

hi, you left a message for me earlier? Usong725 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

re reverted edits on "Diabetic ketoacidosis‎" and "Osteonecrosis of the jaw‎"

Hi, can you please explain why the edits on the said topics were reverted? Thank you Usong725 (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Usong725, the content was based on sources that were not strong enough for medical content in an encyclopedia. James suggested that you read WP:MEDRS, which outlines the requirements. I suggest the same. JFW | T@lk 10:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

DOI

Hi, James, yet again I require your opinion. The DOI page is currently using a chembox, but as it's a recreationally used drug I think a drugbox might be more appropriate; what do you think? Fuse809 (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hum good question. I do not know about none medical drugs. Maybe post on the talk page first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Early detection

Hi Doc. Thanks for your message... you're right. Regarding the sentence "Unfortunately, because of a lack of early detection strategies, the disease is usually advanced when the diagnosis is made", there are two options. I could change it to something like "Unfortunately, because most countries do not perform routine screening for gastric cancer, the disease is usually advanced when the diagnosis is made" or I could just change it back to "Unfortunately, because early stomach cancer causes few symptoms, the disease is usually advanced when the diagnosis is made." The first option sounds like a plug for gastric endoscopes, so I'll go with option 2. Hope that's okay. TTFN, Alan Merrit (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How common does the disease need to be in a population before screening makes sense? This should be discussed in the prevention / screening section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for replying. I'm not an expert but it's my understanding prevalence of the disease within the target population is just one of many variables considered when deciding whether or not to screen. Other factors include sensitivity, specificity, safety, acceptability, cost of the screening test within the target population, also safety, efficacy, & cost of the treatment for the disease within the target population, fiscal resources of the country, whether healthcare in the country is predominantly private/public etc. Over time, screening tests and treatments both improve, and there comes a point when it makes sense to screen. I suspect this might be too complex an issue to include within the gastric carcinoma article. Up to you though. Have a good weekend. Alan Merrit (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Why can't I refute a secondary source with a primary source?

Conversation moved.

Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit reversion

You should have left a message on the editor's talk page to explain this reversion, especially when the editor is new to Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes feel free to leave messages when I do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That message is a pathetic attempt at trying to engage a new editor. I have sent a proper message. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ultimatum

'Dumbledore says people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right,' said Hermione, of J. K. Rowling fame, in the Half-Blood Prince, on page ninety-five.

If you want to sell optimism and likely ultimate causes, then you will accept cancellation of your work.
If you want to sell drugs and doubt, then you will keep to your version of baby colic.
Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.152.124.107 (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to reflect the best available which I define as review articles and major medical textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Kelly Bonyata, a respected International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, who like wikipedia writes sourced scientific advice literature (Bachelor of Science), Cow's milk iz the most common food sensitivity for breast feeders to avoid passing on to nurslings. Like you, she haz direct experience with baby colic. Unlike you, she iz prepared to counsel mothers to read labels and avoid casseinates and whey. This research supports her counselling with the gold standard of experiemental design. You do not. Doctors like pills, because pills get results quickly and effectively when they work at all. Does that put you in a conflict of interest? I find you to be out of your field, because you practise emergency medicine, and we are talking about pediatrics. Why are you supporting your position with policy instead of science? Surely you can see that reviewers would need to be very ignorant of experimental design to say anything more than "Feeding changes usually are not advised.", which iz quite different from what you said, "Dietary changes by infants are generally not needed". Saying that physicians usually do not diet-counsel and saying that it does not need to be done are different things. Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.152.124.54 (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Simply find recent review articles in high quality sources for refs per WP:MEDRS. We must paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How came you to believe that guidelines are more authoritative than rigorous scientific method? 75.152.124.54 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Kindly go bother someone else. If out are not interested in constructive discussion find another website or start your own blog. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments adjusted here [6]

Okay so why do we use review articles rather than primary sources here at WikiProject Medicine? Review articles generally give a better overview of all the literature on a topic. Some studies find positive results other find negative results. Good review articles take all these into account and give them proper balance. Systematic reviews are deemed to be the best source of information for specific questions. Literature reviews are better for a general overview. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day. Thanks. I started a web site and writing articles with points on USENET over fifteen years ago. I started blogging on facebook about five years ago. I only come to wikipedia when my content seems to be under attack, or when I find strong evidence for something on pubmed that really should hav more exposure. When it's more exposure for important information I want, I can usually change one line that iz already supported, and add a citation in a clause. I also fill in citation requests. I do hav persistent citations on wikipedia. I do not want to tell you where they are, because you are a deletionist with a heavy and authoritative knife. I do not blame you for trying to simplify and cut down baby colic. Unfortunately, quartering it, and cutting out my content based upon one review that found a lot of inconclusive evidence for just about everything it considered wuz too much. Perhaps you should start an independent writing career. I think your speaking career iz more useful, though, especially if there can be a greater degree of "we" in this discussion. I am not a pediatrician. I fell in with a group of wimin on facebook who are very wary of pediatricians, and who are not afraid to tell you why. 75.152.124.54 (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to ask for further opinions at WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, further opinions do not count. I do not aim to change policy, so I should hav no need to gather consensus. It seems that on this particular article, I do need to gather consensus to do a deep reversion. That iz enough work for me. Policy refers to common sense in many places. Unfortunately, common sense iz rare, people are creatures of habit, and those habits create beliefs. In this case, habit of enforcing a content guideline haz created in many people a failure to understand what constitutes rigorous scientific method, and it iz not necessarily reviews. Even textbooks contain opinions. 75.152.124.54 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please notice that the template no longer tells people to delete primary sources, even if the guideline does. This guideline runs counter to WP:PSTS, which is policy that explicitly allows primary sources. What am I supposed to do if a primary source contains risk ratios, and a review does not? 75.152.124.54 (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

For what content? Often review articles will state by how much something changes risk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Meta-analyticaL reviews calculate a summary odds ratio (SOR), which iz a risk ratio weighted for size of study. One man plus courage is a majority. I haven't even found RCTs about baby colic and chocolate, onions, or Brassica; no reviews, of course. Those are few and far between. For example, I found a meta-analysis for SIDS that means babies exclusively breastfed have a twenty-seven percent of normal risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Breastfeeding nearly quarters a baby's risk for SIDS. Recommendations from the United Nations and WHO about breastfeeding are not meta-analytical: They are popular reviews, though.172.219.255.215 (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please write normally or do not write on my talk pages. There are reviews that cover diet and colic. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your homework is piling up. My problem is more specific than diet and colic. White on black tells you more clearly who is speaking than nesting. Prove that there are reviews concerning brassica and chocolate, because I just showed evidence that there are none in searches that are one-hit wonders. 172.219.255.215 (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry not how it works. We use review articles because they show notability. If it is not commented on in a high quality secondary source it is not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Risk ratios show that, not people. Facts are not a popularity contest. Why is it important for experimenters to be ignorant of whether their subject is a control? Bohgosity BumaskiL 172.219.255.215 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

refs?

What is it that you want references for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjones008 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You should be adding refs whenever you add content. This edit for example needs a ref [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding alkalinization of urine and uric acid stones, I'm right. The correction I was making was the previous version reported xanthine oxidase inhibition to be the primary therapy which is wrong. The reference shows that there is dramatic melting of large stones with alkalinization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtopf (talk • contribs) 07:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay but "cornerstone of treatment"?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtopf (talk • contribs) 07:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How about "Raising the pH of the urine by potassium citrate or bicarbonate may dissolve uric acid stones"? with this ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21121431 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We however discuss it already in detail here [8] What was wrong with this bit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment removed from my talk page [9]

Thanks for the words advising caution. Am in conversations with a few editors who share my concerns but are uncomfortable to express them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)