User talk:Doc James/Archive 104

Merry Christmas
I hope that you, Doc James and your family have a Great Christmas and a Happy New Year!-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  09:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah User:Literaturegeek, great to see you :-) I hope life is treating you well. Have missed seeing you around on a regular basis. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Second Sight Medical Products
I think - and have for some time - that the company, as a company, is sufficiently notable to merit an article. Now it has another product the article about Argus 2 will not suffice. You appear to disagree. How can we get a wider consensus on this point? Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The argus 2 is simply a newer version of the original. IMO that does not justify an article about the company.
 * You can propose Talk:Argus_retinal_prosthesis Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

COPD edits
Thanks for reviewing my COPD edits. I appreciate it! I noticed that you prefer the ncbi link removed from the references. These are put in automatically from the cite function. I can manually remove them after I have added a citation, unless you have any other suggestions. I usually use the cite function to add a new journal, and generate it using the PMID. I have tried the DOI, but it adds the journal's publisher. Hope you are having a nice holiday!

JenOttawa (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:JenOttawa. I have been trying to get the WMF to fix that aspect of the tool for some time. Basically the url is not needed as the "pmid=" parameter does the same thing. Thanks for the edits :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For now I will do my best to manually remove the link after I add the reference. JenOttawa (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for VSV-EBOV

 * Congrats!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Manual Ability Classification System
Hi! For the last month or so, I've been working on the cerebral palsy article, and I've noticed that you've been fixing up some of my work there. Thank you for that! I began working there because I was looking for information about CP, but couldn't find much. I've created a draft article on one of the classification systems commonly used in CP discussions these days at Draft:Manual Ability Classification System. I would really appreciate your ideas on this draft, because the articles on the Gross Motor Function Classification System and Communication Function Classification System are so different in their presentation and content. Could you please have a look at it and give me your thoughts? Sorry for the awkward timing, but this is when I'm free-ish to write. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure will take a look. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

wp:lead
Hi Doc James, Thanks for your note on my page re the above. Sorry about that.

It makes me wonder, though, whether perhaps this article might be better as two separate articles, one "toxoplasmosis in humans" and another "toxoplasmosis in non-human animals", as the current intro features not much overview of the non-human info.

Also, as the 'research' section applies exclusively to humans, it seems to me to make sense following the human info better, not following the non-human info.

Kind regards, -- Ty rS  03:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As humans most of our readers care more about the human related information and thus the layout per WP:MEDMOS. Most human diseases can also occur in animals and we do have a collected of articles called "X in other animals". This is more for vet med related stuff rather they research on other animals to develop treatment and learn more about the disease in humans. Or for disease cycles in which humans are a part which we place under causes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Doc, in reply to the message you left on my Talk page - I have ten years' experience editing Wikipedia and do not need patronizing "tips" on what consitutes a reliable source. The tone and content of your note imply that you view yourself as being entitled to dispense advice and corrections from on high. The point of contention here (i.e. the Syphilis article, and in particular the section on famous people who died of syphilis) involves historical facts for which 21st century scientific criteria of verifiability are not available. The judgment of competent biographers and historians in this case is just as reliable as peer-reviewed academic journals, if not more so. I think you need to do a bit of extra reading yourself: perhaps you could start with a lesson in epistemology, Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions for instance, or Foucault's Birth of the Clinic. You could supplement that with some background reading on hubris and nemesis. And then maybe cap the whole thing with a re-read of Wikipedia's policies on "ownership" of articles. -Wwallacee (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wwallacee, No this was triggered by the use of a 1949 primary source


 * Specifically this one "R. Reid, "Tuberculous glands of the neck", Postgraduate Medical Journal, Oct. 1949, p. 465-470."


 * I have replaced it with a secondary source from 2007. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner
Template:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Relationship between hypermobility - Hypermobility (joints) -, and lax ligaments - Ligamentous laxity
Dear Doc James, I see we have an article on each of these topics, butI don't think they were linked to one another until just now, when I made each one into a See also. Should there be more discussion in each article about how they relate? I found the articles rather confusing, because I was not understanding whether they are separate conditions, or if not, how much they overlap, and how. Invertzoo (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Invertzoo would need to look at the literature. I guess the question is are they similar enough to be discussed within one article? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess that is my question. Or at least if the two topics are kept separate, each of the two articles need to acknowledge the existence of the other article more than it currently does. Invertzoo (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From my understanding I would be supportive of a merge. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I am a medical student
Happy new year sir,i am bangari a medical student, this is my first edit in wikipedia,today accidentally in google search i found your article in wikipedia, i am so impressed ... by seeing your article i feel so happy. I want to participate in wikipedia editing.....I am final year medico, i am so much interest to write medical articles.. pl kindly help me. (Medical.student (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC))
 * User:Medical.student Welcome :-) What languages do you speak? 17:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Medical.student of course but any other languages you interested in working in :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can work only in englsih

I want to create a new article in wikipedia, already i selected a new subject and also i got reliable sources,,,i want to show this article and sources to you , before post to wikipedia.Is it possible? because if i do like this ,i can found mistakes in the article and my article will stay ...

(Medical.student (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC))


 * Sure put it in your sandbox here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Medical.student/Sandbox&action=edit Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I posted an article "Olive oil for hypertension treatment" in above my sand box...I am very much interest in hypertension articles and subject ,because a leading cause of death in world wide.Today i studied hypertension article in wikipeida,accidentally i watched talk page and discussion about jac8 ...in that view i found your used id ,watched about you ...then i sent message to you...Can i start another article "jac8 guidelines for Hypertension"? (Medical.student (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC))


 * Sir, i am composing another article now...i will post tomorrow... (Medical.student (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC))


 * I am replying on Medical.student's talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I am so surprise by seeing edit history
i am Dr James MD, I was edited the article "hypertension" ,first i didn't see your user id, it is like my user id. But it is an accidental...after seeing edit history i observed this

(Doctorjames2017 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC))

later
 * Sure later. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Acne Vulgaris FAC Take 2
FYI, I opened a new FAC where you can place any suggestions/opposition/support, etc. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra
I'm wholly shocked that you've aided and abetted disruption on Sinatra's talk page. Still, why am I surprised?  Cassianto Talk   17:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup someone was pulling my chain :-) Happy New Year. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You closed a discussion you were extensively involved in? Meh Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And still at it, even removing comments because he doesn't like them. Why is this behavior condoned? 107.77.205.98 (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I did. Problem? Would it not be even more of a problem if the project had've lost even more editors owing to the constant drilling of infobox lunacy?   Cassianto Talk   17:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not particularly care. Collapsing is not a common practice. Do not plan to join the fray. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You strike me as someone who very much cares, owing to your post there. Either you're humouring George Ho; you're  a hypocrite, or your account's been hacked.  It's hard to choose really.   Cassianto Talk   17:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's me or something, but he comes after one IP user, me, and you about the collapsing of the Frank Sinatra infobox. I don't mean to antagonize Cassianto, but I'm a little more worried about the delivery toward others. If starting another discussion so soon at Talk:Frank Sinatra is disruptive, I won't do it start another discussion... until Man walks into Mars? (I didn't imagine, honestly, that battles over infoboxes would be over the top.) However, I'd rather discuss Cassianto with an administrator, like you. What do you think? George Ho (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, Cassianto calls my arguments a "strawman argument" and me "sad and desperate". Is that acceptable? George Ho (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, look at the deleted content from his user talk page. George Ho (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it is you. And yes, you do mean to antagonise me. You're being disruptive and I believe you've followed me from Kubrick to Sinatra in order to piss me off further as both are on the same subjects. I also don't fall for your innocent tone you project in your responses to me. You know exactly what you're doing. You have form of harassing and bludgeoning other editors, don't you?   Cassianto Talk   22:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but you and I haven't interacted much. I just happened to receive your responses. Have we contacted each other before the Kubrick and Sinatra talk? George Ho (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * George, just in case it's slipped your memory yes you have. Do you really want another visit to Arbcom regarding your constant shit-stirring (which in the case of infoboxes has been going on for at least three years now)? &#8209; Iridescent 23:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I didn't interact with him much, but... never mind. I won't make bad judgments about editors, Iridescent. That'll save me from ArbCom, okay? George Ho (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You may not be aware of me, but I am very aware of you. Thankfully, our interactions have been virtually non-existent up until now, but like TRM, I've also unfortunately been the recipient of your harassment and bludgeoning. I appreciate you have restrictions, so I won't mention this again, but you're damn lucky I haven't taken it further.    Cassianto Talk   23:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Doc James!


Happy New Year! Doc James, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Donner60 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks User:Donner60 :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dedicated medication pages
, would you provide an opinion on Jytdog's expansion of ASU, SKI 306X, and phytodolor at osteoarthritis? The information he is adding is interesting and would go great on dedicated pages for each of those medications, and is not relevant to OA. Can we please put all this information on a dedicated page for each medicine and return the OA page to the way it was?Sthubbar (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To give an example: "Glucosamine and chondroitin are generally manufactured from fish or animal products, respectively,[100][101] although there are some glucosamine products derived from fungi or plants." As someone interested in OA, this sentence tells me nothing about OA and has no relevance to the treatment, history, etymology, or anything to do with OA.  This is specific to the substances and should be on the page for the substance and removed from the OA page.  Right?Sthubbar (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that specific sentence belongs on the subpage. This discussion should occur on the talk page though. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year Doc James!
Happy New Year! Hello Doc James: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Doc James}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
 * Thanks User:JustBerry :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Rhinitis
Hi Doc James, now I see that you moved the pronunciation to infobox. Unfortunately it does not look good. Besides, the average reader can easily overlook it, like I did. I would leave the additional pronunciation in the main text at least for rhinitis because this word is more important and its pronunciation is less obvious. However whatever you do, I will respect your decision, because medicine is not my field. Regards :-) 85.193.240.37 (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Have moved it Rhinitis. What do you think? We usually do not put this in the first sentence for medical topics. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, look at the article talk, where you will find my detailed opinion.85.193.240.37 (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Replied Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

question
First, Happy New Year, second do you know when we might see editor stats 2016?thanks Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Ozzie10aaaa :-) Working to get stats developed. Hoping to get some in the next week or so. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Jane Blalock v. Ladies Professional Golf Association
This article was created by me in November 2011.

I removed the COI tag you added to this article. Today I became aware of the tag after somebody posted to the talk page. I have no opinion on Earflaps but trust that the community made the right decision in banning him. That said, his edits here weren't in any way paid editing or promoting Jane Blalock. (How would drudging up an almost forgotten scandal be beneficial in any way) They were attempts to improve the article. I had many problems with his edits. Just look in my talk page archives or how I reverted some deletions he made. Other edits of his had me exasperated. The present state of the article could still stand some tweaking but a COI on it is not justified....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:WilliamJE It was just a note for someone to review the article. Earflaps is a well known undisclosed paid editor / company. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Norovirus page views
This WaPo article got me interested in this. I'll send an email on another topic in an hour or two. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup our pagesviews follow frequency of diseases and news coverage of diseases. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Common Cold
'''diff. diag. from flu''' - I don't particularly object to your changes, info distinguishing cold from flu is widespread on the web, and I don't feel a lot of detail is needed here. However the article cited https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/coldflu.htmcdc.gov/flu/about/qa/coldflu.htm did say (later para) "symptoms of flu can include fever or feeling feverish/chills, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, muscle or body aches, headaches and fatigue (tiredness)." D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:D A Patriarche agree it did. It did not say they were more common than in the common cold though. Also IMO a more in depth discussion of differentiation between the two belongs in the body of the article rather than the lead.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ref
thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. I assume it refers to smoking and stillbirth? As I'm sure you know, one needs to appraise sources. It's not everything in 'high quality' sources that is true or accurate. I'm sure someone with your level of training would not dispute that smoking cigarettes/tobacco can cause stillbirth. Ear-phone (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I see, it's to do with fathers having guilt at times. Maybe if you have a look at this. Ear-phone (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Ear-phone you can use high quality sources just like everyone else. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * the point I was trying to make as highlighted in the reference is that some things do not have a 'high quality source' because there are so obvious. I quote, "As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute". I don't think one needs studies to know that fathers might have feelings of guilt following a stillbirth. Ear-phone (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not looking for an RCT, looking for a review. If you cannot find a review that mentions it than it is of questionable notability. We are here to summarize the best avaliable sources. We are not here to publish our own opinions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I did not imply an RCT - I'm sorry if you interpreted it this way. By your reasoning, the guilt fathers might experience is not as important or notable as that mothers might feel. Anyway, another user initially mentioned fathers, not me. Ear-phone (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just use references that support the content you add. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll leave this one, although I think fathers are under-valued by the medical community (of which you're a part). This is reflected in what they publish and thus the available references. Ear-phone (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

WTF with the crazy mixed caps?
Holtzman Inkblot technique, seriously, as if Holtzman Inkblot is a proper name? Where do you get this stuff? You seem to have done a bunch of these. Where is this coming from? Dicklyon (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Dicklyon yes should have removed another cap such as  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please review each move and fix. Dicklyon (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure will double check them. Thanks for picking this up. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Tuberculosis
Dear Doc James,

I agree with your general statement that more recent insights are to be preferred over older ones. There is, I think, one important exception: in history the original 'old' primary reference is usually preferred than the more recent 'new' secondary literature. That is what I changed. I regret that you entirely 'fixed' (read: removed) our suggestions.

I regret that you did not like and 'fixed' (read: removed) our entire addition of Thomas McKeown's findings that mortality from TB had already declined in the western world by 90 to 95% before streptomycin and BCG-vaccination were widely available. These findings have been confirmed for most infectious diseases, and as we showed in the (removed) figure, can also be found in the recent US-data from the CDC. McKeown's findings, corroborated by overwhelming more recent data a.o. by Noble laureates Robert Fogel (1993) and Angus Deaton (2015), still strongly influences the way how WHO, IMF and UNESCO fight the battle against TB (and other diseases of poverty). Yes, patients with TB need to be adequately treated by effective drugs, and high risk populations may profit from vaccination (although the evidence for that is very thin). But, as McKeown, not a small fish in British public health policy, has advocated for many years, with drugs and vaccines we may win the battle but will loose the war against TB. Thereto, our efforts and resources should be primarily directed toward improving the standard of living in low resource countries, and to improving the environment by providing clean water, sanitation, better housing, education, safety and justice, and access to medical care. Even if one disagrees with these non-medical public health measures, they have been more effective than drugs and vaccines. How much more effective? As shown by McKeown: 95% for public health improvement versus 5% to medical care improvement is not an unrealistic proportion. We therefore think that these figures from public health research deserve a righteous place on a Wikipedia page on TB, even if you do not like them personally.

Your sympathy for biomedical research and solutions for TB is clear from your advocacy for more research toward new drugs and new vaccines. We appreciate that, and therefore I wished not to correct all minor inaccuracies (e.g. the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation actually redirected their funding towards the official WHO policy and less to basic and disease specific biomedical research; see above). I did however correct what I think was a medical error: surgical intervention of pulmonary complications from TB is strongly discouraged by all our medical societies, and should only be reserved for highly selective cases: it is high risk surgery, and requires high standard intensive care facilities, it is therefore very expensive, not an option for most low resources countries and moreover, this dubious indication has not been tested according to medical research standards. It sounds heroic but it is bad practice. I saw that you changed our suggestions to make your advocacy for surgery even stronger. Thereby your overall very informative page looses much of its credibility. Please, I kindly suggest to soften your statements regarding surgery in TB.

Again, we really appreciate the page on TB, and recognize that you did a lot of valuable work on that page. One of the major advantages of Wikipedia is that mistakes and omissions can be repaired by others. I hope that, with this explanation, I have convinced you of the rationale for our minor adjustments, and hope that you agree and will 're-fix' them (or agree that I will do so).

Do not hesitate to reply to eventually get to the best value information on Wikipedia.

PS: 'I' wrote this reply, 'we' is our research group in Amsterdam.

Best regards from Ljstalpers (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The article said "By the 1950s, mortality had decreased nearly 90%. Improvements in public health began significantly reducing rates of tuberculosis even before the arrival of streptomycin and other antibiotics, although the disease remained a significant threat to public health such that when the Medical Research Council was formed in Britain in 1913, its initial focus was tuberculosis research. "


 * So the article already commented on the very great importance of public health measures. The BCG vaccine did came into use in 1921 but agree improved sanitation play a major role.


 * This was replaced by "The British public health scientist Thomas McKeown (1962) described that the mortality from tuberculosis in 19th century England and Wales had declined nearly 90 to 95% by the time that an effective antibiotic drug, streptomycin, was introduced in 1947 and before nationwide BCG-vaccination was introduced in 1954. A similar pattern of decrease in mortality from tuberculosis was seen in other western European countries and the USA (see figure). McKeown gave convincing arguments that improved nutrition was the main reason for the decline of mortality from tuberculosis in the 19th century; "


 * With respect to your addition regarding the current use of surgery you added the sentence "The treatment has not been tested in an RCT." I did not remove your sentence to "make advocacy for surgery stronger". I removed your sentence as it was unreferenced. Do you have a reference for that?


 * User:Ljstalpers My main concern was the sources are from the 1960s. Unclear why the more recent publications were replaced? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)