User talk:Doc James/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asthma

Hi, James. Are you planning to take "Asthma" to FAC? If so, perhaps you could open a peer review and I shall formally review the article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No I have never had luck with FAC. Thus simply stay away. Just shot for GAs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, okay. In that case, I may try to take the article further. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Microbiome

Have you read this NY Times article and this Wikipedia articles?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/health/human-microbiome-project-decodes-our-100-trillion-good-bacteria.html?pagewanted=all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Microbiome_Project
I think if I would say about that to you few years ago and provide some 10 articles from PUBmed you wouldn't accept it, and you would say that microbiome and anything which uses this principle for a cure is a quackery. But we are not in the time of rapid change. I bet they didn't teach in the medical school about Microiome, especially in the way it's introduced in the above mentioned links.
I'm not directly connecting it to colloidal silver (silver nanoparticles) of course. But I just want to say, that some respectable scientists had written that it's "a new vector in antimicrobials". Please let me know if you would like pubmed links to the articles saying that.
About Silver nanoparticles and Colloidal silver there is actually a very slight difference, I'll post about it on the talk page. However in short, the difference is as much as ciprofloxacin and CIPROFLOXACIN HYDROCHLORIDE. Which is practically the same. Using scientific language we may use the second term, while in common practice we would use the first term. Colloidal silver is silver nanoparticles in a water. Water is obviously inactive. Sometimes they use more scientific term "agnp". Example is this link: http://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB72129214.htm. And this www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22958173. Ryanspir (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes nothing to do with colloidal silver. Some good evidence for this one though and yes I am aware of the literature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ryan — WP:VnT is pertinent here, especially the bit about Pasteur. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Medical translation

Thanks for contacting me on this. Although I handle quite a bit of translation, medicine is not my field. Sorry. Good luck with your project. --Ipigott (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Response please

Could you respond to the message I left above at #Commons:Commons:Batch uploading/ECGPedia. If it's all good, I'll do the upload.Smallman12q (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "We will need to go through and add this after the fact." Could you rephrase/elaborate?Smallman12q (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Once the images are uploaded we can go through and describe the ones that are not yet described. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Simple enough. Will upload tmrw. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 Uploading.........See Commons:Special:ListFiles/Smallbot and Commons:Category:Media from CardioNetworks ECGpedia for progress. At ~14/minute, should take a few hours to do the 4278 files.Smallman12q (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done-ECGpedia has been uploaded. If its fine, I'll do the other pedias tmrw.Smallman12q (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if its fine, and I'll upload the rest.Smallman12q (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi - what part of article do you need reference?

Best regards

Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.47.221 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

All the changes you have made have been without proper references. Please see WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinion wanted on misquoted study

Hi,

I think a study about HIV transmission risk has been partially misquoted in a Wikipedia article, as summarized by me on Talk:HIV/AIDS#Commercial_sex_transmission_risk:_study_misquoted. I think you might want to add your opinion.

Best regards, RPgzLp (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you are correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

elevation

There is a dose response relationship between increasing elevation and decreasing obesity prevalence in the United States.[1]

Yes a tentative primary research study. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

cervical cancer

due to the fact "genital warts" is uneditable, I edited "cervical cancer" to make a very important point and raise some awareness to people who would do some research on cervical cancer online.

you deleted my edit, why?

Thank you for deleting my post and now people don't know that even if you have all the physical protection in sexual acts, you would still catch genital warts and herpes.

You need to provide references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Smile

Hello Jmh649, Eduemoni has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Cataract

Sometime in your edits of January 28th to cataract, your last sentence in 'Medications' became disconnected. Do you think you could have a look at it sometime? I would edit it but I'm not completely sure of your intention. Regards. --Mdscottis (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Wiki Project Med Foundation - Ossip Groth

Metatextbook of medicine

I am setting up a wiki based documentation for my metatextbook of medicine and my medline&more ultrasearchengine. I am in lag of tagging about 10k items and all 2012+ items.

Thematical linkouts would be appreciated - to my preformatted review collections and/or my pre-formatted pubmed search term expressions as exemplified in that documentation at 04 feb 2013. And as a source of selected papers, of course, too :))))

Yours sincerely - Ossip Groth

Indeed, there is a major problem in medicine which I can understand as a german and which is of utmost importance to my collegues from romania, bulgaria and so on - they dont understand english, so they are not able to formulate pubmed search terms. I recently wanted a paper from a chinese server - i couldnt even registrate to use it.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey James, I took a look but I'm frankly not sure how this integrates with Wikipedia, WPMED or WPMEDF. Maybe Ossip can clarify, because I'm not clear on the purpose our how we would help. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 19:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems that it's very much a work in progress, but the goal seems to be a metasearch tool for publications on medical subjects. It doesn't yet seem to have hooks to use INNs, ICD codes, MeSH, or similar headings, which would seem to be an obvious way to reduce language dependencies. The English-language introduction page could clearly benefit from some copyedits, but he's got some good ideas that will be helpful in identifying accessible high-quality reference materials. Perhaps he could get some help from the Translators Without Borders? I'm sure Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange and its other-language equivalents could be of some assistance in assessing and commenting on the tools. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Moving Content

I Jmh649, i got a question on your way of moving content. First of all, here's few exemple of what i'm talking about (by edits id: -403331487 -403332145 -403332304 For those cases, it's in the comment that those actions consist in moving content to subpage. But after some research, i'm totally unable to see where it can have been put. I understand those are hold post (but i've seen this append else where too). So i was wandering if it is a simple bad habit naming your comment, or if those are simply misleading of what is truly appening (like a simple deletion of content). So please, explain yourself (or just be more specific in your comment). I making quite some researchs on that kind of edits, so a little explanation of your proceeding will be welcome. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCMoineau (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you give more details. Maybe links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
You always can use de diff app, changing only the unique id. Here's a example with my first link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaria&diff=prev&oldid=403331487 (Note that the title of the article doesn't have to be legit, only the edit ID will be considered). This example is a good one, because your modification invoke 4 differents places where you should have put the removed content. Yet, there's no trace in any of them.
Unsure what the issue is? Some content was moved to subpage (which it was probably already on so simply removed) and the other section was simply moved from once place to another. All done a long time ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It's obviously old stuff here that i'm talking about. I'm doing research on content who's moving around articles in Wiki, which is quite specific. If i came to you yesterday, it's because it's have been already few times that i cross some of yours contributions (high quality work most of the time btw, so good job). But i've found myself having real difficult time understanding what's going on when you contributing by moving content around, suppressing that same content on the original page. Might be a way for simply suppressing stuff without much debate. In that case, it will be very misleading and bad habit. If i came to you, it's because in at least 5 cases (may seem little, but for that kind of contribution, it have great effect on the target page).For those case, i was simply enabled to verify your affirmation. I suppose that my intervention can conclude only by asking you to maybe be more careful on how you tag your contribution. Outside of this, continue your good contributions. MCMoineau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.179.9 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Certainly will try to be more clear :-) What are you researching exactly? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Vertebroplasty refs

I was merely arguing that it is intrinsic to double blind studies that when the experimental and placebo group show similar degrees of benefit that the benefit in the experimental group can be attributed to the placebo effect. This concept is so basic to double blind studies that I do not believe that a reference is required. Part of the very reason for the existence of blinded studies explain the nature of the results of unblinded studies.CrunchyChewy (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Cancer biomarkers and ovarian cancer and site site [1]

Sorry, I do not understand why you have removed all my edits to the "cancer biomarkers", the "ovarian cancer" and the "gene expression profiling" pages. We have developed a freely available online software which was already used in top journals like Nature, Cancer Cell, PNAS, etc. We have 1500 users per day. Since it is designed to validate cancer biomarkers, I believe this is a useful info for wikipedia visitors as well. Zsalab2 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Are there any review articles published about this tool? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Image size

Thanks for referring me to WP:IMAGE. I enlarged the image of the eye and put some text in bold on 'Cataract' to assist users with poor vision. I see that size up to 400 are considered reasonable in some circumstances. Would this not be an example of where this is appropriate ? Aspheric (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If one sets image size to default than readers with poor vision can set the size they wish to see to whatever they like under "preferences". If people have poor internet connections they may wish to see smaller images. If people have poor eyesight they may wish to see larger images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Paper Access

Hey Jmh, do you by chance have access to this article? I asked OhanaUnited but I haven't heard back (granted, it hasn't been long but the sooner the better). Drug-induced gynecomastia: an evidence-based review. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22862307 Expert Opinion on Drug Safety 11(5) 779-795 doi: 10.1517/14740338.2012.712109

Hey Doc, if you have access to this paper, can you send me a copy? I want to see if it has information to verify something in the gynecomastia article to which I've been adding sources. Thanks, here's the paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22732638 Large-cell calcifying Sertoli cell tumors of the testes in pediatrics. Current opinion in pediatrics 24(4): 518-522 doi: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e328355a279 TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Flail Mandible

Hi James,

I made an entry for "flail mandible." (It had not existed previously.) It was brief--one sentence each for definition, cause, and treatment and included one journal article as a reference. It looks like it was taken down already. Is there a good way for me to learn what wasn't up to par about it? Also, is there any kind of mentoring system when learning the ropes of Wiki? I want to contribute, but do not have oodles of time to figure out "how" to do everything....

Thanks.

HeatherLogghe (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure it does take a little while to figure. We typically want to use secondary sources such as review articles or major textbooks.
This is probably a better reference [2]. The recommendation is that this article be merged to Mandibular fracture until there is enough content to justify its own article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference in bed bug article to B. bassiana

I got your message and agree wholeheartedly. I will gladly remove the reference to the web site news article. I only ask that the reference to the Journal of Invertebrate Pathology be allowed to stand. What is the basis of your continued objection to this? KDS444 (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It is primary research. Per WP:MEDRS we prefer secondary sources. I have even provided a couple of these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
From WP:MEDRS: "[E]dits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge." That is all this paragraph did.KDS444 (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The rest of it says "When citing primary sources, particular care must be taken to adhere to Wikipedia's undue weight policy. Secondary sources should be used to determine due weight." Is there a secondary source that mentioned this? My edit was to give it due weight. If you use secondary sources things are easier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
You are giving it due weight by removing it-- that is not exactly giving it due weight. You are quibbling over a relevant citation to a relevant piece of research that was included well under Wikipedia's guidelines for them. This starts to feel like an edit war. KDS444 (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
If you do not like my position. Feel free to ask for another opinion here WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

April - National Contribution Month

Hello James,

I know you know, but I sent you the template anyway. Everyone on the WMCA participant list receives this :

Good day Jmh649,

During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.

Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.

If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.

Benoit Rochon (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Confused about Bronchitis

Hey Jmh, I'm confused about what happened with the bronchitis article. Aren't we supposed to follow this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:MED#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Bronchitis is not one disease but two: acute bronchitis and chronic bronchitis. What are you thinking? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, I understand that. When I was working on the page and got it peer-reviewed, I was guided by Zad68 and a few other editors to abide the MOS of diseases and to have the article broken up into sections such as epidemiology, history, signs and symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, etc. I saw what you said on the talk page and it seems like your questions, which I think are justified, point more to why have an article about "bronchitis" when there is already a wikipedia page for acute bronchitis and one for chronic bronchitis. Were the people instructing me on peer review just wrong or do we need to open this to a bigger forum to discuss whether the bronchitis page should even be there? The changes you made today were dramatic ones and very different from what I was instructed to do on peer-review which is why it raised concerns.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Let discuss further on the talk page. IMO bronchitis should really be a disambig. It is not one disease but two very different diseases. Each of these two diseases should get a brief overview with a link to the main article. Otherwise we end up with cotracts. Do you think that sounds fair? I would view this as an exception to the rule.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Chiropractic

That's a rather heavy handed approach James. Please discuss this with me at the chiropractic talk forum. Discuss the language you would like to see used. Disagreements in viewpoint amongst research is common but accusations of misrepresentation of sources is not assuming good faith, IMO. Anyways, I look forward to discuss it further with you in the appropriate forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVMt (talk • contribs) 01:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A heavy handed approach would have been reverting back to the last neutral version. I have no idea who wrote the section in question thus was not assuming anything of anyone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, the whole goal here is to get it NPOV and you can look at all the sources, raise any issues on the talk page and we can discuss it. There is scientific consensus (not unanimity) regarding manual therapy including SMT and back, neck pain. Regards, DVMt (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The article was far more neutral before. Thus returned to where it was. A couple weeks ago.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Text moved from my user page

I removed that sentence because, as best as I could tell over the paywall, it was not supported by the reference. I say no reference to a 90% rate in the entire population (just those 70+), and even if it were, the wording suggests a much higher incidence than there actually is.

This is what the ref in question states. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Does it say that in the hidden part of the paper, because it doesn't in the publicly accessible part. (It would be nice if there was a citation that everyone could review.) Foobard (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Most parts of papers are hidden. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The most complete excerpt that is publicly available says "In the United States, the prevalence of HSV1 increases consistently with age, from 26.3% in 6- to 7-year-old children and 36.1% in 12- to 13-year-old children to 90% among those older than 70 years." Using the 90% number without qualification would not be accurate. If you're referring to something in the censored part of the article, I apologize, but that is the trouble with referencing closed access journals. Also, it seems that the paper in question is citing the numbers from other papers, so it would be better to cite those directly in any event. 70.68.149.234 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The 90% number is for BOTH HSV1 or HSV2. I can send you the paper if you email me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer review article have a higher impact factor and higher level of evidence than review articles( level IV) . But Im sure you know this and your response was an error . I was wondering why are the Level 1 and level 2 reference article I keep on leaving for this page gets deleted and reverted back to none peer reviewed commercial website and statements with no reference .

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.224.82 (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No systematic reviews are level one and RCTs are level 2. And impact factor is of the journal not the article itself? Please read WP:MEDRS. Which systematic review was removed from where by whom? Please provide me a dif. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)

Barnstar

The Medicine Barnstar
Thank you for helping asthma get back up to a respectable state. It's the first big article to make it this year! It's is also in the top 0.1% of all Wikipedia articles by page views. Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Cancer

What is your opinion on http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120202094700.htm and the referenced article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C2DT12399A)? Is it a respectable source? Ryanspir (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No science daily is not a suitable reference. The study in question took place in a petre dish.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, per wp:medrs using of primary sources is not bad. Please see WP:USEPRIMARY "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad".
The research itself is aimed at ingestion of a variation of a colloidal silver in order to treat cancer. But I didn't actually was asking at this time if we can use it in the article. What I'm asking is whether in your opinion this research is respectable? Ryanspir (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it clinical useful you mean? The answer to that would be no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not asking if at this time it would be clinically useful. I'm asking whether in your opinion this research is respectable? Ryanspir (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what that has to do with improving Wikipedia which is why we are here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, if this is a respectable research, we shouldn't probably consider cs as quack medicine, right? It's unlikely that a respectable university will conduct research towards ingestion of a variation of cs for cancer patients if it's a snake oil, am I wrong? And then the preliminary positive results would second that further? In my humble opinion. Ryanspir (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Does the paper mention cs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
What is cs if not an equal dispersion of silver nanoparticles in another medium? Ryanspir (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

While I do not think cs is "silver complexes bearing bidentate N-heterocyclic carbene ligands" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I do think that it's a 'variation' of cs a the very least. That's why I have said "variation of cs" and not "cs" to be extra safe with the definition. But I think it's indeed is considered as a colloidal silver (especially when used in it's broad meaning). Same as quack watch didn't specify if what they are calling cs. Ionic silver? Metallic particles of silver? A 25%/75% of these two? "Colloidal silver" definition doesn't differentiate between different variations of the silver molecules or the way they are arranged. For as long as it's silver and it's suspended in another medium it answers the definition of cs. Ryanspir (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Please keep article-related discussions on the article talk page so that others can know the backstory. Thanks, Desoto10 (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually I wanted to know Doc's personal opinion about this :). Once he will reply to me we will decide if it can be useful to the article and I'll present it on the talk page. Ryanspir (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Doc already gave you his answer, it was "No". Zad68 13:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
With all of the respect, he didn't say no. His final statement was if the "silver complexes bearing bidentate N-heterocyclic carbene ligands" is falling under cs. So I have gave my reasoning, that cs doesn't define the atom's position or anything. As long as it's silver, ie it contains the atoms of silver, and as long as its evenly dispersed in another medium, it is cs in the direct meaning. And, as long as it contains silver (atoms of silver) it's cs in it's broad meaning. Ryanspir (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Please (Ryanspir) stop doing this. It makes it very difficult to follow topics. You will need consensus on the article talk page if you want to use this reference, which means that you will need to copy all of this over there, anyway. Why not just ask on the appropriate article talk page?Desoto10 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, Desoto. Thank you for your suggestion. Though I prefer to know the opinion of Doc James first. What if I'll decide not to post it on the article's talk page? Ryanspir (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

No, it's not listed there

The Simple English page is not listed among the languages on the left side of the screen in the Croup article. I have no clue why you wouldn't want people to find the simple version of the article - so I don't understand why you'd remove the link I placed in the article. I'll continue to put the link back in unless you can provide a better explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSteeleInCalifornia (talk • contribs) 01:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Popular Pages

Hey Jmh, when does the top 500 medical articles usually turn over? It's still reading the December statistics but it's the middle of February now. Just wondering. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like it's updated by Mr.Z-bot, operated by Mr.Z-man. It does not look like he's run the.bot to send out updates in a while. I know he has been working on changes to the back end piece of the report system. You can ask at Mr.Z-man's User Talk page but his responsiveness is notoriously spotty, he's busy with a lot of requests on his plate. I am actually hoping to be able to take over some of the tasks that WP:MED needs from him. Zad68 22:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I see, I didn't know if there was an individual in charge of operating that or if a bot took care of that or something. I think that'll be good if the responsibilities are spread around since it definitely sounds like this person may have a bit too much to do.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Check out my proposal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Community-Driven_Video_Production_Portal Let me know what you think! Victor Grigas (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Old Primary References

Hello, I was just wondering what you meant by "old primary references". They were legitimate so it seemed to me? Was there something wrong maybe how they were listed? Also I noticed you used Twinkle which from what I understand detects vandalism. I was not trying to vandalize the article but rather add a more expansive detailing to it. Just to clarify.

With regards, Ariadavid (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifically stated "Reverted good faith edits by Ariadavid". The issue is that the sources are not very good. This [3] is a primary research study that looked 27 people and was published in 1993. And this ref is not a reliable source [4]. Hope that helps. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Colloidal silver stats

Sure so 6248 out of 74678 people came to this article via the term colloidal silver in Jan 2013 per [7] Have you tried to add content about the size of the retail market and had it rejected? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked at the chart, but how did you tease out the stats for the specific keywords 'colloidal silver'?Blakebeau (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'm pretty sure Doc also did a similar lookup for Colloidal silver, which redirects to Medical_uses_of_silver#Colloidal_silver, so that's how we know how many people who got to Medical uses of silver did so through doing a Wikipedia lookup on Colloidal silver. Zad68 15:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the numbers but these are just described as 'page views' not search terms. Would I be correct in thinking these figures don't account for people who type 'colloidal silver' into Google then see this Wikipedia article (Medical uses) as the first result, then click it? The stats come from a Squid cluster whatever that is but it sounds purely internal. Possibly it only counts people who typed colloidal silver into the Wiki search box. (I've also posed this same question on Talk at the Silver article.)Blakebeau (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi DocJames. I've seen your signature around here and there, but never knew what your position was on COI.

I was curious if you support COI work like this. RTI International is a good example to use, since they have published a lot of notable research on cancer and AIDs, so I thought you might be familiar with them. Their previous article looked like this. I think they are an honorable organization, not an evil corporation, and a lot of their research is in itself a reliable source. But they did need help being neutral, understanding Wikipedia's rules and explaining why we would want to include the gun-shooting in Iraq, though it's not something they would prefer.

I'm interested in the debate in general. Do you think my helping them in this capacity was a bad thing for Wikipedia? In this case I was assisted very promptly and so my poking for your opinion is not connected to the timeliness issue discussed on Jimbo's Talk page. Just looking for ways to improve and gain fresh perspective. I don't think the article is perfect and the GA review may offer further criticisms, but hopefully my contributions are at least up to the standards we would set for most editors.

Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 23:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have less of a concern about people writing about themselves or their companies than writing about their products. My opinion is that it is nearly impossible for corporations to write neutrally about the stuff they sell. Maybe it is just that I care little about articles about people and companies and more about products.
I could tell some stories but doing so is a indefinite block-able offense. And this is really the bigger issue Wikipedia faces. Wikipedians are not allowed to talk about cases of COI. Wikipedians are not allowed to defend themselves from systemic attacks by people with COI. That when companies edit nefariously to systematically bias the coverage of themselves and what they sell we fight an uphill battle to address it. I see this as one of Wikipedia's greatest failings. :P.S. only really edit medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Huh, I see it being most difficult for them to add contentious material, cover controversies where they have a vested interest and writing neutral Reception sections, but I would see products as being the biggest target for spam. It is also hard even on a volunteer basis to avoid promo on product articles. This is a pretty strong attempt, but I still feel it will need a second pair of eyes before it's ready. OTOH, we added content from an analyst report, which no volunteer would ever have access to, even though it reflects somewhat poorly on them. If that's not a sign of good-faith, I don't know what it is :-D This is also a product article, where we substantially reduced promotionalism. Why? Well we just want a good article, that's all...
Probably why we've never bumped into each other. You won't see me on medicine articles. Well, if you do ever find my COI behavior objectionable, I'm always trying to improve. Cheers CorporateM (Talk) 01:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries. We do work on completely different subject matter. I have no idea where to even begin writing about companies and there for not able to really comment on the work you have done one way or the other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Stuff like this is always around to give me perspective. I wonder if editors sometimes see my requests in the same light. If there's one thing Wikipedia offers in large doses, it's always filled with fresh perspective. CorporateM (Talk) 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion request at Wikimedia Commons: Your input would be welcomed.

Good Afternoon, Dr. Heilman. I'm wondering if you would be kind enough to assist me. I am taking part in an active discussion at commons:Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Straddle injury.jpg, and I have managed to succeed in questioning my own judgment on the image at hand, that being of a 5 year old female with a vertical straddle injury to the vulva, bruising to the left and right labia, and what looks like old bruising through to the buttocks.

My initial suspicion was the result of sexual abuse, but I am now at the wrong end of questioning myself as to origin - would you be kind enough to take a look at the injury (the uploader has provided an external link to the image in question) and provide your own opinion on the matter, please. Thank you for your time, regards, FishBarking? 17:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

To tell the difference between a straddle injury and sexual assault one would need to take into account history. I am no expert on this sort of matter and thus cannot really add more than that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Voss, JD (2013). "Association of Elevation, Urbanization and Ambient Temperature with Obesity Prevalence in the United States". International Journal of Obesity. doi:10.1038/ijo.2013.5. PMID 23357956. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_40&oldid=1149828326"