User talk:Doc James/Archive 102
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey James, you don't think the details about BPO's lipophilicity explaining its ability to penetrate into the skin follicle/pilosebaceous unit should be on the acne vulgaris page? Nearly every acne vulgaris review I've read discussing BPO mentions this. Food for thought I suppose. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- We have the advantage of having links that reviews do not. IMO the mechanism of action of the med belongs on the article about the med. We should discuss how well it works in the acne article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's fair. I thought it made it simplified the explanation for non-medical readers who may not understand why that works. I tend to not rely on the assumption that readers will use the wikilinks but I suppose if they're hungry enough for that information they will. I don't have much experience getting articles to FA personally. In your opinion, what do you think the article needs to get there? I'm trying to expand it further with the goal of getting it to FA. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think the article is really good already :-) The problem with FAN is many there wish to have articles written for a professional rather than general audience which IMO is a disservice to our goals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that being written for a professional audience runs counter to Wikipedia's core goals. Our articles should be kept as simple as possible for a general readership. In terms of the article's quality, do you think it is reader for FAN (FAN politics aside)? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Article is well referenced. Covers the topic broadly. Remains on point. Any historical images of acne that could be added? Would have my support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'll look into seeing if I can find some useful historical images. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Added one. Feel free to replace with a better one if you want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think it looks great. Thanks for adding that. Just an FYI, I've nominated it for FA. If you're interested, here's the link to the nomination page [1]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Added one. Feel free to replace with a better one if you want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'll look into seeing if I can find some useful historical images. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Article is well referenced. Covers the topic broadly. Remains on point. Any historical images of acne that could be added? Would have my support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that being written for a professional audience runs counter to Wikipedia's core goals. Our articles should be kept as simple as possible for a general readership. In terms of the article's quality, do you think it is reader for FAN (FAN politics aside)? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think the article is really good already :-) The problem with FAN is many there wish to have articles written for a professional rather than general audience which IMO is a disservice to our goals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's fair. I thought it made it simplified the explanation for non-medical readers who may not understand why that works. I tend to not rely on the assumption that readers will use the wikilinks but I suppose if they're hungry enough for that information they will. I don't have much experience getting articles to FA personally. In your opinion, what do you think the article needs to get there? I'm trying to expand it further with the goal of getting it to FA. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- We have the advantage of having links that reviews do not. IMO the mechanism of action of the med belongs on the article about the med. We should discuss how well it works in the acne article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Regarding cholera information
Dear Doc James,
I am writing to you in respect of the information contained on your website at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholera and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholera_vaccine.
I want to let you know that on June 10, 2016 PaxVax’s vaccine Vaxchora was approved by FDA for the prevention of cholera. FDA’s press release announcing this approval is available at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm506305.htm.
For more information about Vaxchora, please refer to the product prescribing information at https://www.paxvaxconnect.com/PDF/Vaxchora_Prescribing_Information.pdf and the product website at https://www.paxvaxconnect.com/vaxchora.
Best, Pamela Fishman (On behalf of PaxVax, Inc.) Client Solutions Director pfishman@guidemarkhealth.com Guidemark Health™ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.93.178 (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Professional-to-professional
P2P. View the second entry of q:Mike Godwin#Quotes. You would think that Michael claimed to be in some PVS and thus be some sort of helpless victim. Nay. The God-king could be in some PVS in Maylasia and the by-laws of the Foundation would yet still render that man in a position of tyranny into which you have wandered, dear physician. Revelation 18:2. Nay. Rather does he foster a Tower of Babel because thus he amasses for himself yet another thirty pieces of silver. Go down Moses and gaze upon your promised land: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/dl/jimmy-wales/ . Still do not believe? Listen to Berkman Luncheon Series with Brad Patrick. Brad knew what the score was. He says it: the most valuable intellectual property was not encyclopaedic content but rather the Alexa traffic ranking and thus the market dollar-value of the Wikipedia.org domain name. See http://wikipedia.org.websiteoutlook.com .--172.56.33.219 (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Possible B' Crat position
With you being a hard working admin, I think you might want to apply to be a B' Crat. Thanks! Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Gary "Roach" Sanderson thanks for thinking of me. And appreciate the vote of confidence :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Citation overkill
We had this discussion back in September. I pointed out that WP:REPCITE makes it clear that you don't put consecutive citations of the same source in the same paragraph. Nothing in WP:MEDMOS contradicts this. MEDMOS only says that you shouldn't include prose in the article body, and then add a source to the References section as a non-specific or general reference. It does not say that consecutive cites of the same source in one passage/paragraph are acceptable. Nightscream (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- WP:REPCITE says "One can hide citations with <!-- --> to prevent confusion in the future... References can then occur after each sentence which is the prefered style for medical content." User:Nightscream. These were the type of references you were removing. And yes we did have this discussion back in September. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I was unfamiliar with that part of it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Neuropraxia or Neurapraxia?
An IP did a partial change of spelling Neurapraxia -> Neuropraxia I Googled and got 48k hits for Neura and 98k hits for Neuro. Google also gave a definition of Neuro but not Neura. Is it Neura or Neuro? I did not revert the IP. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- The IP had also deleted a paragraph w/o explanation, so I reverted it all. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Rosacea
When you completed a merge for Erythrotelangiectatic rosacea into Rosacea back on the 26th October, you also deleted the merge in notice for Glandular rosacea; was this deliberate or inadvertant? In either case, do you have a position on the merge proposal? Klbrain (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
PVS
In the USA, PVS was made a bit of a fuss over:
and a few others. Regards, Mr. Skin T. Bronze.--2606:F180:0:45C:45C:5474:74D3:49E8 (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
A possible paid editor
Charles Turing (talk · contribs · count), is a possible paid editor along with Nairspecht. A probable disruptive editor too (the edit made doesn't relate with what IMDb says). They both have an active history in promoting certain Malayalam language films, blocking pages during the film release and removing contents from film articles which has or had similar release dates. Some edits extend to post release manipulation during commercial selling of the film through online and other means.117.215.198.195 (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have evidence? If it contains personal details you can mail it to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I'm sure Doc remembers, but for talkpage stalkers this may have to do with a COIN discussion from last month. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nairspecht may also be illuminating. – Brianhe (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2016 (UC)
- Do you have evidence? If it contains personal details you can mail it to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- And he is back. The same IP hopper (BSNL, broadband, from Kerala, registered to the same person) who tried to establish some POV stuff in Action Hero Biju (see talk) and some other articles.--Charles Turing (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Creating Cannabis in Malawi?
Please comment here: Talk:Malawi_Gold#Split_off_Cannabis_in_Malawi.3F Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Infoboxes in split hormone/drug articles
The {{infobox drug}} templates contain at least as much chemical as drug information and there have been off and on discussions about merging the drugbox with {{infobox chemical}}. These infoboxes were removed in this and this this edit from a hormone article after it was split from a drug article. It may be appropriate to remove the clinical data section from the drugbox, but it is not appropriate to remove the whole infobox. Some of these might eventually be replaced by chembox, but that replacement would be a lot easier if the drugbox were left in place. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Boghog agree good point. I see you have them updated :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
A medical article in desperate need of attention
You do so much good work related to medical articles. Is there any way you could make Boot (medical) into a decent article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- We also have Walking boot Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Drug overdose seizure
Doctor! I was overdosed by high dose of tramadol opioid pain killer. When my parents took me to the hospital, I was diagnosed seizure in the EEG. I didn't tell doctor about the incident was happened due to high dose of that painkiller. Maybe doctor thought I was natural seizure patient and prescribed 2 years of medicine "Valproate". Please tell me, am I really a seizure patient? Prasanna67 (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Schistosomiasis
re edit revert - just changed squamous to transitional following info on bladder cancer link - I read 80% of cases either on bladder cancer page or transitional cell carcinoma page or a link but you are right it wasn't in the ref used. cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes User:Iztwoz most bladder cancers are transitional cell, but most bladder cancers caused by schitosomiasis are squamous cell from what I can tell. It was in the ref before but it is no longer since they have updated. Not really needed either way in the lead though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Refs
Phase IIa and IIb trials include studies that were reported in the dossier submitted by GSK to FDA when they filed the drug for approval. It is historical data, but is what was cited by GSK as part of their application process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdoshi2 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm still trying to get a hang of this "talk" feature, so please excuse me if this is not the way to respond. I don't quite understand your question about review articles - Phase II trials usually are RCTs conducted, and therefore have original findings. I do agree with the "preclinical section" that you omitted earlier, and I am working towards structuring that using review articles only. Pdoshi2 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Chinese Ophthalmology
What do you think about this page and its refs and bibliography? Chinese Ophthalmology
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 
(Talk) 20:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe merge to Traditional Chinese medicine? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have made the proposal [2] and added the template [3].
- This is the first time I do this in the English Wikipedia. Is it okay like this? I hope so...
- Best regards. --BallenaBlanca
(Talk) 02:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe merge to Traditional Chinese medicine? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
How to foster translations
Doc: I think I just struck a home run with Calculus I. How do you go about notifying others to get some translations to happen?--Samantha9798 (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- As it appears to be formatted in an instructional style probably best on Wikibooks :-) What do you mean with respect to translation? You mean you want to translate or you are hoping to have something translated? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I think Wikipedia:Translation has what you need. - Brianhe (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have already retreated to the ghetto of v:Calculus I.--Samantha9798 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I think Wikipedia:Translation has what you need. - Brianhe (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- As it appears to be formatted in an instructional style probably best on Wikibooks :-) What do you mean with respect to translation? You mean you want to translate or you are hoping to have something translated? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Please be Civil
Please be civil. I have asked you several reasonable questions, and you are avoiding answering them - three bright line violations of the WP:CIVIL policy. Instead you are bringing me to ANI. And yet I'm the one with the battleground mentality? Why the incivility? --Elvey(t•c) 19:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This page
James Caplan written by the same guy who added the information in the sickle article. Needs proposal for deletion you think? MartinezMD (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
editing corrections, Mitragyna Speciosa
Hello Doc James, I understand not allowing Scientific American as a legitimate source. Thank You & I apologize for wasting your time. What I do wish further clarification on (for editing purposes) is why & when an editor's choice of words or phrasing is considered to be better (more correct) than the original wording by the author (or author's) of the sourced material. I don't want to make the same mistakes in editing twice. If I should be addressing these questions elsewhere, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Thank you for your time & consideration, Itzatwist (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)itzatwist
The Signpost: 4 November 2016
- News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence
- Featured content: Featured mix
- Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog
- Traffic report: President-elect Trump
Contentious statement on Chronic Fatigue syndrome page "Exercise does not (appear to) make people worse".
Hi Doc James, just a note to let you know that I've left a response to you on the main Chronic Fatigue syndrome talk page. There seems to be a consensus that your proposed statement "Exercise does not make people worse" is at best, a little reckless. You are very keen to reinstate it I see, but that view does not yet have any support from other editors. If you feel strongly about the statement, there may be other ways to introduce the material - for example in the section on exercise therapy itself. There you will have more space to expand on the issue of adverse effects (or lack thereof) of exercise treatments. If you take this approach, it may be possible for us all to come to a consensus solution to this problem. Thanks for considering my input. --Wilshica (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Doc James, you seem like a good and responsible editor. But you have behaved poorly over this, refusing to concede the point. And I certainly didn't expect you to launch an ad hominem attack on me in this way, that's quite inappropriate (I'm not even sure which editor I supposed to be in cahoots with!). Your accusations require no defence. I'm not sure what your motives are here but I don't think they're NPOV. Are you keen to ensure patients do not become irrationally fearful of exercise? If so, then start a new section on the fear avoidance model of CFS, its very much worth including.
Please do not accuse me of bad faith again.
As I said you seem to be a good and valuable editor, and there are many other ways in which you can be contributing effectively to this and other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilshica (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- The term 'ad hominen attack' is used when someone tries to win an argument by criticising the person who takes an opposing view (questioning their intelligence, integrity or their motives), rather than the arguments themselves. But surely you know this?
To encourage the joining of data, I added the following: Twillisjr (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Human skeleton (Clickable)
 |
- Yes that is very nice. Agree would be great to have an easier way to make these. User:Twillisjr are you going to finish this one? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Mesothelioma - TheTopinfo.com
James hi, it is my site and it is not spam, i am starting to collect best articles from the web on different topics, mainly on cancer. All information regarding Ed Lauter is a fact. Please accept it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assem Bis (talk • contribs) 04:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a group of you working together:
Have blocked all the IP accounts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I just heard you on the radio on NPR
- James: Way to go, dude. You are completely legit. Hey, you are making an effort to have WP health pages translated? I have just accumulated some experience in that department. See top of the page v:Calculus I.
- You should not have gold stars at the top of your userpage if you did not do the nomination. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Take a look at, say, User:Acroterion handles that. He actually did do the nomination, but he is being humble. When I saw those gold stars at the top of your page, and then I realized that you did not do the nomination, I was a little disappointed. Mr. Skin T. Bronze (MSTB)--1.0.254.66 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- If you look at the FA nomination for Dengue fever you will notice that both JFW and I were the ones who nominated it.[4]. Was also involved with bringing it to a GA[5] and publishing the article in Open Medicine in 2014.[6]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I was just going by WP:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. It gives credit to Jfdwolff (JFW). I think that it is designed such that it only gives one person credit. It documents what data it uses to generate that page.--2602:304:CDC1:90:E14B:CB72:2C44:651 (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- If you scroll over the schizophrenia star it will say "This user helped keep Schizophrenia at Featured Article status on May 2, 2011"
- Yeah, but it is unusual to put "helped" FA in the upper right hand corner.--2602:304:CDC1:90:E14B:CB72:2C44:651 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Calculus I is looking good on WV. Great to see the translations :-)
- Yeah, but they are only Google Translate translations. That is about 70% of the job, but they both badly needs copyedit by native speakers who are familiar with enough math to not mess it up. That is what the non-English Wikipedians gave as feedback. A French WV admin broke the page up into 13 pages. Maybe no one will translate it now because the job looks much bigger. It took more than a day for fix each link in the French and German pages. Google Translate messes up all the math markup and Google Translate often does not translate to the best term. For every wikilink, I had to test and if it was a mismatch, then I had to go to the English Wikipedia page and use that Wikidata crosslink to get the exact word or just remove the link if there was no translation. I am still trying to decide whether to re-apply my latest changes to the English by hand or to do the entire translation process all over again. I am willing to do the work because I hope that via that page I might revolutionize how the early weeks of Calculus I are taught throughout the world. Heck, I would settle for changing it only at the high school level in my lifetime.--2602:304:CDC1:90:E14B:CB72:2C44:651 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, and avoid any sort of compound sentences. Google Translate (GT) cannot handle that well. But GT can get maybe 50% of work done for the translator. You have to follow the example of simple:English Wikipedia as much as possible.--2602:304:CDC1:90:88AC:B712:274A:A1F0 (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- If you look at the FA nomination for Dengue fever you will notice that both JFW and I were the ones who nominated it.[4]. Was also involved with bringing it to a GA[5] and publishing the article in Open Medicine in 2014.[6]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I listen to NPR a lot, but I apparently missed this one! What was the topic, and the show? I'd like to look it up online. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I heard you too! Great job. Very fun to think . . .hey that's the guy who helped me untangle my references on Zika! ;) Also, I have met wikipedians onwiki and met a few offwiki, but don't think I've ever heard the voice offwiki of someone I met onwiki . . . neat! Really clear answers without dumbing down. Usually a sign of someone who has told a story many times . . . well done and thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent edits, its basically what I would have done, but I have a COI with the subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Doc James. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- My current thoughts on the candidates User:Doc_James/ACE_2016. More to come with time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Complex sentence clause structure
James: Complex sentence clause structure (CSCS) is your enemy. I have not examined your work, but I am giving you a warning: if you want human translators to translate your team's text, then your must write in a way such that Google Translate can do a greater percentage of its work correctly. In this way, your human translator has an easier job while doing to fine editing and is more likely to volunteer to do the work. See more about this at v:Calculus_I. Cheers, Mr. Skin T. Bronze (MSTB).--2602:304:CDC1:90:B9:9F84:5618:7F5A (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. If you see leads of medical articles you think should be simplified more let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- And thereby do we find common ground, my little licensed physician.--2602:304:CDC1:90:5CB8:A7E8:9514:7E79 (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am spilling it now, little licensed physician. Now. To some licensed lawyer. Now. https://www.facebook.com/robin.lamont.58 --2602:304:CDC1:90:5CB8:A7E8:9514:7E79 (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
e-mail notification
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.
AndreyBaltaev (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Use of primary sources in medical articles - Neuroangiogenesis
Hi Doc James, I work as the Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Edinburgh and my colleague, Dr Chris Harlow (ChrisH2015) has been running Wikipedia assignments for 4th year Honours undergraduates in the Reproductive Biology course this year & last year, whereby the students research a reproductive medicine term not represented on Wikipedia and then co-create the new article. Last year, they helped research & create the Wikipedia article on Neuroangiogenesis. Recently, while the latest iteration of the assignment was going on with approx 40 students creating 8 new articles on reproductive medicine, Chris worked to improve the Neuroangiogenesis article by citing some research findings published in reliable journals. These were flagged as WP:Primary and the edits reverted. Chris feels strongly that the research these articles indicate should be allowed on Wikipedia as the quality of review articles can often be inferior in comparison. As a layman when it comes to writing medical articles, I realise that WP:Primary is an important issue for medical articles but I wondered if Chris had a legitimate point. Would you be able to clarify the stance on the use of such articles as sources for medical pages? Or be able to point me in the direction where such discussions should be taken? Chris would obviously be able to articulate his concern better than I so his Talk page or the WikiProject Medicine Talk page perhaps? Let me know what you think anyway. Best regards, Stinglehammer (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Stinglehammer. Why not use secondary sources is the question? Yes some secondary sources can be of poor quality but many are of high quality and we should be using the high quality ones. We can either discuss here or at WT:MED if you want further opinions. If the content has never been mentioned in a high quality secondary source it does raise a bit of a red flag that it could be a one off. One major aspect of the scientific method is repeatability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Doc James, that's what I more or less thought would be the case. I hope you don't mind but I've moved this conversation to the WT:MED page as per your last comment. I've let Chris know your point and hopefully he'll come back to you shortly on the WT:MED thread. Best wishes, Stinglehammer (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Stinglehammer. Why not use secondary sources is the question? Yes some secondary sources can be of poor quality but many are of high quality and we should be using the high quality ones. We can either discuss here or at WT:MED if you want further opinions. If the content has never been mentioned in a high quality secondary source it does raise a bit of a red flag that it could be a one off. One major aspect of the scientific method is repeatability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia
Your messages might have a good intention, but they actually annoy me to the degree of avoiding further edits; I've been working on Wikipedia for over a dozen years, with several dozen edits each week on average -- nonsense like this made me delete my account (as far as it is possible). Whether I forgot to sign an edit somewhere or not -- just drop it, please. --92.194.82.80 (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Today I feel like Noam Chomsky himself. Take a look. MSTB.--177.221.42.97 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Primary source that I used is actually used in another section
A significant negative correlation between pain severity and dopamine synthesis was demonstrated within the insular cortex. A subsequent study demonstrated gross disruption of dopaminergic reactivity in response to a tonic pain stimulus within the basal ganglia with a significant positive correlation between the defining feature of the disorder (i.e. tender point index) and dopamine D2 receptor binding potential specifically in the right putamen.[1]
Remove?
Class of two ?
Hello Doc James - re your note on my page - seem to be two users .51 and .52 working on same articles - yes there is a lot of clean up needed and I'm unsure about edits as haven't checked or been able to; some I have looked at seem fine - shall try to keep an eye on things. If there is continuous same cleaning up needed do the editors need your advice? thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I noted that you have commented on this.
It is now up on the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey, so please vote!
(And yes, this is absolutely shameless canvassing.....;) )
Huldra (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- ^ Wood PB, Schweinhardt P, Jaeger E, Dagher A, Hakyemez H, Rabiner EA, Bushnell MC, Chizh BA (June 2007). "Fibromyalgia patients show an abnormal dopamine response to pain". Eur J Neurosci. 25 (12): 3576–82. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05623.x. PMID 17610577.