User talk:Doc James/Archive 111

Class edits
Hi Doc, I see you've at seen least some of the class edits involved in the larger issues being described here and here. I'm running into edit warring problems at Pesticide drift and leaching in the Central Valley of California, a new article created by the students that's currently at AfD. Not long after warning one editor about 1RR today (after reverts a few days ago), another student readded the edits, which is getting into meatpuppet territory unfortunately. The whole class situation is getting pretty dicey, but would you be willing to look at the situation at this article if you're still watching the topic? I'd rather not bring students to AE, but we're getting into standard students not listening and plowing ahead territory. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me try reaching out to the prof in question. They have been adding in appropriate stuff here Organophosphate poisoning which I thank you for helping out on.
 * User:Ian (Wiki Ed) we need something done on this. Using WP to promote a specific position (ie pesticides are bad) is not cool. If you are going to try to do this you need to at least be using the best of the best sources. Ie systematic and literature reviews in high quality sources. That is not happening. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you haven't read the ENI board, it looks like the Wiki Ed folks are waiting on addressing this until classes end unfortunately (also tough because the prof has been combative too there and at ANI). It's getting to the point that admin action might be needed since the other normal channels for addressing classes have been used already, but I'd still rather not see it go that far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocating a specific position :-( Have not been closely following. Simple try to keep some of the pesticide and health stuff high quality. Will look later. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've been working with the students and the instructor. I thought we had an agreement to stop editing in mainspace, but that doesn't seem to have held up. Edit-warring, venturing into meatpuppetry, is a really big problem. Thanks for the ping. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wiki Ed folks are waiting on addressing this until classes end - I just want to clarify that Wiki Ed has not suggested postponing dealing with this class's ongoing content issues. What we've asked to revisit in the summer are the big picture discussions effectively learning from how this class went (i.e. what information the class was given beforehand, how to prevent similar issues, changes we can make to training modules, best practices, etc.). Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. The reason for deferring those discussions is in order to focus on content being added to mainspace by this and other classes (this is the busiest time of the semester for student work). So do please keep flagging these problems and we will continue trying to address them. That said, we're limited to communicating the best way forward and trying to help with problems as they come up. Students are told at many stages not to edit war. Meat puppetry isn't something that comes up very often in student classes, but is one of the things that we may be able to provide clearer advice about when learning about students doing group work (again, while that discussion would be better in the summer, dealing with actual meat puppetry going on now is not something we would request postponing). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For some background, the way forward that came from discussions between Wiki Ed staff and the instructor, taking into account issues the community has raised, is outlined at ENI here. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thalidomide synthesis edit
Hi Doc James,

I noticed that you had moved this section that I added to now be under the "society and culture" section of the thalidomide page. I feel that the synthesis of this drug does not sufficiently fall under this category, but I would like to hear why you believe so. Being so different from the topics in that section, I feel that "synthesis" can itself be a stand alone section on the page as it describes an aspect of this page that is different from everything else on it.

Best, Mpagan2 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at WP:PHARMMOS. Yes it goes after MOA. So moved it there. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

HughD and his IPs
Doc James, I wanted to take this discussion off line since it isn't about project medicine. The HughD SPI page sadly is lacking one of the SPI investigations and isn't up to date (if you will) regarding the IP editor. First, since we are dealing with a constant barrage of new IPs it doesn't really help to ask if this latest IP was discussed in the past. The admins have taken to range blocks to deal with this editor. The IP editor actually asked for an unblock! [], []. In both cases note the blocks were range blocks since the editor was jumping through so many Amazon based IPs. There was a third SPI investigation done off line. At the time it was found that all the IPs were the same editor but, since HughD hasn't logged in for a while, it couldn't be concluded based on check user type evidence that this was HughD. [] Since the IP was engaged in disruptive behavior NeilN took to blocking as illegitimate and reverting the edits. [] Based on the obvious behavior links between these edits and the previous IP editors these IPs have been blocked. Since DoRD range blocked a few of the most recent IPs no one bothered to also say they were associated with the previous IPs.Springee (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. If further issues occur at Eddie Eagle we can protect it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

History of medicine
Hi Doc James, I've had a lot of people interested in editing on the history of medicine,but at the moment there's no appropriate banner/taskforce really to group and assess their pages. Whilst they are technically medical-themed, I'm a bit reluctant to tag an article on a 17thC doctor as being within the scope of Wikiproject Medicine generally, and I was wondering if maybe it would be worth setting up a taskforce. What do you think? And if you think it's a good idea, do you have any advice on how to go about it? Thanks in advance! Zeromonk (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Zeromonk We generally tag them all with WP:MED yes.
 * I would be cool with a history of medicine task force.
 * Instructions for creation are here
 * It is a fair bit of work and currently I do not think any of the task forces are active. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Salk but not Sabin
I'm mildly curious: you edited Polio vaccine to remove the names of Sabin and Koprowski from the subheading, with the comment "1961: Sabin and Koprowski: to be similar to other headings", but you left Jonas Salk as a subheading. Why is Salk ok to be named in a subheading, but not Sabin or Koprowski? Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not attach a date to the Salk heading. Have adjusted Jonas Salk to be a subheading of 152-1961. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Two seemingly contradictory reviews - please help!
Hi Doc James,

I've found a couple of reviews on behavioural change methods for increasing exercise adherence in youth with cerebral palsy (in Management of cerebral palsy) which at first blush seem to say different things about their subject. Could you please have a read-through and help me work out what's the best information to put in the article? (Even as for equine therapy for CP, it becomes simply 'reviews disagree, A says this, B says that'.)

The current text in the article is as follows:

Behavioural change methods can be used to promote physical activity among young people with cerebral palsy. It is difficult to sustain behavioural change in terms of increasing physical activity of children with CP.

I'm sorry to have to ask for help and put more on your plate, but I would value your input with this - I don't want to give people bad information because of my misinterpretation of a source. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Will take a look soon. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay so they came to similar conclusions
 * 1) "There was a small... effect of physical activity intervention compared with passive usual care on level of habitual physical activity, of approximately 1000 additional steps per day. There was no significant effect on leisure time physical participation"
 * 2) "There is level I evidence for no effect of physical training on objectively measured physical activity, conflicting level II evidence for interventions with a behavioural component on the increase of objectively measured physical activity directly after the intervention, and level II evidence for no effect during follow-up."
 * Basically 1 found physical activity intervention resulted in a small effect and 2 found conflicting level II evidence for the interventions. Appears there is no long term effect, physical training by itself is not effective, and it does not change leisure involvement such as in sports. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help - it's disappointing that there's been so little evidence for interventions used, but at least now we know that there's not much good in that... I've been trying to concentrate my efforts on expanding the article with 'stuff that works', largely as described by the 2013 paper by Novak et al.  --122.108.141.214 (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Nivolumab
Re: your recent revert. I thought I'd bring it to your talkpage to discuss. I can see we're both Canadian docs in research and have been on Wikipedia for almost the same time (though your contributions far exceeded mine -- I don't enjoy the ER shift lifestyle, unfortunately). I appreciate the need to include review articles, but case studies have been, and do get included, in drug pages all the time. Nivolumab has shown promise in that study not because it was randomly thrown at the patient, but because its mechanism of action is consistent with inducing cell cycle arrest in ALCL. Whether it deserves its own section (as I did), or just a mention in ongoing research is up for debate. However, removing a peer-reviewed source because "we need review article" and then slapping a message about sources on my page is a bit much. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 20:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

PS. I have no COI.
 * Thanks for dropping me a note. I am hesitant to use case reports. I am not seeing any reviews on the topic though. I do not think that is ready for Wikipedia yet. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Research question answerable by a statistician?
The data analysis team at Consumer Reports offered to do data processing to help me answer some kind of statistics research question, probably about traffic to Wikipedia articles or something else within Consumer Reports' domain of interest. Something simple which came to my mind is that I would like a list of the traffic to every Wikipedia article on a drug. This is almost something that I can do with user tools but a little out of reach to me.

I thought I would ask - do you have in your mind any particular research question which might be answered with statistical analysis of Wikimedia data? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Bluerasberry This WikiProject_Pharmacology/Popular_pages just came back online.
 * Some of the questions I have are:
 * 1) For top importance article, what proportion of our references used are journal articles, of the journal articles used what proportion are review article
 * 2) Same for other categories of articles.
 * 3) Would like to get an update on how many Cochrane reviews we are using? And how many of those used are not the most recent. With a full list of the not most recent ones.
 * 4) At the end of 2016 how many references supported our medical content in English and a all the other languages. That would allow me to update this
 * What was the total pageviews for medical articles in 2016 broken down by language and mobile versus desktop versus zero. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Copy, thanks. 4 of 5 of these involve counting all references and then cross checking them for other characteristics, which is a gap in our understanding. Thanks for the perspective and I will see what I can do.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Andrew West is happy to share his code but does not have the bandwidth to do this himself. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Something I'm a little curious about would be roughly how many of the sources used in the most popular articles have been published within the last 5 years? I think it would be really useful to be able to find out where the medicine articles are relying on dated sources.  I know some historical sources will never go out of date (such as key descriptions of a disease), but maybe a traffic light system might be good to look at as another way of discovering articles that need to be updated.  --122.108.141.214 (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree excellent suggestion. How many last 5 years, how many 5 to 10 years, how many 10 to 20 years, how many older than 20 years. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't forget undated sources such as general information pages. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes would need an unknown group aswell. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

On the translation task force
Hi! I am interested in improving the very poor coverage of medical topics on Turkish Wikipedia, where I use my alternative account Seksen iki yüz kırk beş, and am writing this as I have come across your involvement in the translation task force (which has produced some of the best medical articles on Turkish Wikipedia) and correspondence with Merube89 (who unfortunately is not active at the moment). For some time, I have been partly translating health-related articles from English or writing them up on my own where the article in English is lacking. As such, I found this task force very exciting. Even though our WikiProject Medicine is currently inactive, I would love to introduce this project to Turkish Wikipedia as part of an organized drive to improve health-related content.

Looking through the project page, I had doubts about whether the project is active at the moment, so I wanted to ask you what could be done. Is the collaboration with Translators Without Borders still going on? If so, I could perform the required assessment and come up with a list of articles to be translated. As I do not live in Turkey, I unfortunately cannot help in organizing a collaboration with the universities like the one in China, but can help in introducing the local community to the idea, possibly organizing an on-wiki task force and liaising with users in Turkey regarding what they could do. However, of course, all this would be much more effective if it is done within the framework of a multilingual task force like this.

I would be grateful if you could ping my Turkish Wikipedia account when you are responding. Thanks in advance,

--GGT (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * tr:Kullanıcı:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş/User:GGT that would be excellent. Yes this project is ongoing and yes we are still working with TWB. Glad to hear that the content we have created in Turkish is high quality.
 * We now have more than 800 articles ready for translation as listed here. All we are encouraging people to translate is the lead.
 * We are also introducing new human centric infoboxes such as you see at gout. We are looking for language leads to coordinate efforts. If you want to take on that roll for Turkish that would be excellent. Email me and I can share further details. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I have emailed you. --GGT (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect have replied :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You are more than welcome. Thanks for considering to join us :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to WikiProject YouTube

 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Here
...should you care to read, is my response to the tagging Noticeboard issue, in which you recently expressed opinion. For fairness, and completeness. I was very sorry that those knowing me helped this to this conclusion, when I was occupied, and unable to respond. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Leprof 7272 Did not realize you were occupied apologies. From what I remember we have spoke about the concerns around over tagging in the past. A single tag is fine, dozens are not. You are simple restricted from tagging and are free to make other improvements. You are not blocked or banned. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Merging Patient_participation with Shared_decision_making
As discussed in your Archive 110, I have proceeded to merge Patient_participation with Shared_decision_making.

According to my plan, the former page entitled "Patient_participation" will become a new page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seniorexpat/sandbox

the first link on which will become the actually merged former pages, now headed "Shared decision-making (SDM)", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seniorexpat/subpage01

I think my new page needs at least an introduction, and perhaps further ideas you have, such as new areas I have missed.

Thanks Seniorexpat (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is going to be the main page? And what title are you going with? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"Patient_participation" will become a new page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seniorexpat/sandbox

"Patient_participation" will continue to be the title. Up until now it has been treated as synonymous with SDM. I understand it to be broader. So SDM becomes the first link on it. Seniorexpat (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally a merge joins two pages together with removal of duplicate content.

Yes, I have merged two pages into one: I merged the old "Patient_participation" with the old "Shared decision-making" into the new "Shared decision-making (SDM)". I then created the new "Patient_participation" myself, which I understand to be broader than merely SDM.


 * Not seeing stuff like "Likewise Dr. Jennifer Carter, founder of the start-up N-of-One, needs more people participating in her company's cancer clinical trials." on either page prior? Such a statement is not appropriate in WP's voice.
 * Additionally the ref to Wikidocs is also not appropriate. We should be following WP:MEDRS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No, problem: both of those passages can be removed. Thanks for your input thus far. I am aware that the section still needs expansion. The role of "Patient_participation" in precision medicine is huge. Seniorexpat (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I have worked some more on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seniorexpat/sandbox Please have a look at it. Thanks. Seniorexpat (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the most important things is to use high quality sources. Linkedin is not suitable. I know User:Bluerasberry is interested in this topic area and could likely provide some excellent guidance as well. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
 * Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news
 * You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
 * There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
 * Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous
 * Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

good luck
placed my support(vote)...BTW did you see? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks you User:Ozzie10aaaa for your support with respect to the Board Elections. Yes heard about the deaths in Liberia. One would think that if it was Ebola again they would have figured that out by now. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Cure Award
Hi. Saw this Award by you. Check this though: Pages that link to "User:Kani". Best Regards. -- Gary  Dee  20:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Gary Dee that was a 2015 award delivered on 29 February 2016.
 * This says they have made 113,395 edits to eo.wikipedia
 * Can you clarify the concern? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I just mentioned it, for future, in case it should apppear again. :) Best Regards -- Gary  Dee  04:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It was for their work on eo WP. We now have the language codes better fixed so the award should go to the correct WP. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Dog bite
You made excellent edits to this article. I try to retain as much content as possible since I hate to make it go away and wait for someone else to add references but it fine with me if it is deleted. Can you send me a link to all the med articles you want translated again? Please leave it on my talk page. That way it won't be lost (by me). Best Regards,Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  11:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Posted on your talk Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

German contributors
Hi Doc James, many thanks for your amazing work. I had to make some correction at the WP-statistics (Wiki Project Med Foundation), because some of our contributors were not listed at the right country - and did not get the Award in German WP. It will be nice, if you would send them the Award too. Thanks --Partynia (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Partynia. The 2016 awards are based on these stats and went to everyone who made more than 250 edits.
 * Are you requesting that the 20165 award be sent to the correct wiki? Or were there 2016 awards that went to the wrong wiki? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * f. e. Drahreg01, Cvf-ps didn´t get any.f.e. Zieger M the award went to the wrong wiki. BTW, on which data the stats are based? --Partynia (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Ladsgroup did the data
 * I have asked him to look into it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please look also at Uwe Gille. He is missing in 2016 stats, but is one of the most active users (medicine) in de. --Partynia (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe there is something wrong with the stats. Please compare the number of contributors (and their number of edits) in 2016 with 2015, 2014 and 2013 here. --Partynia (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will check this soon. Ladsgroupoverleg 13:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I have requested that Ladsgroup look at the numbers again. Prior years were calculated by User:West.andrew.g. Agree with you that the numbers this year appear off. It is a complicated calculation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I checked the raw data and they were okay and then I checked the analysis script and realized it skips any user that doesn't have one edit in English Wikipedia medical articles (it counts all wikis when the person has even one edit in enwiki medical articles). I fixed that part and re-uploading again. That was entirely my fault and I'm sorry about that. Ladsgroupoverleg 09:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Updated in User:Ladsgroup/Top medical contributors (500, detailed). Sorry again. Ladsgroupoverleg 09:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks user:Ladsgroup. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ladsgroup and Doc James.--Partynia (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Rabies
This should be translated, only my opinion. People are still dying in those regions speaking those languages you want translated. I am progressing nicely with my translations. Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  17:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes that is on the translation list :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Asthma adverse effects corticosteroids
+- 1 in 10 people using inhaled corticosteroids will develop trush ! So I find it weird you removed that part from the asthma page. Or are side effects defined (here) as only severe things? It is true that maybe this side effect does not belong with the long term use, but it should be mentioned somewhere. Trush/inections in the mouth (+ perhaps even general problems with breathing as a side effect of the drugs, not the asthma itself, because people need to find their correct medication) is something that a lot of patients get! In my opinion the part about the drugs/treatment is rather weak in terms of side effects and the search to find the correct drugs. Many patients end up on this page and it does not mention anything of this. It does not mention that a direct (fast) side effect is: difficulty breathing due to a bad reaction to the type of inhaler (happens also in 1/10 patients) and the side effect of throat problems (like trush), the problem of increased hearth rate. Those 3 are very common problems ! GPs will see those all the time. It is thus weird they are not mentioned. There is also almost nothing written about the search for a good delivery device for powder inhalers (many people have problems breathing in correctly if using brand A compared to brand B) Garnhami (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Small update on what I feel is needed to be added: - trush due to inhaled steroids as a side effect - development of infections in the throat and or lungs due to the use of inhaled steroids (often causing the idea that breathing is worse, but that it (the breathing getting worse) is actually because of this infection and not the asthma itself) - more difficult to breath when taking a new type (often MDs or specialists prescribe a certain drug, patient goes home, tries it and feels (sudden or after a few days) that he has more trouble breathing. A big part of the asthma patients has this problem! They change or get a new type of inhaler/drug and they get this type of symptoms. - increate in hearth rate after using them (major side effect) => most commons problems GPs see with asthma patients are trush + bad reaction to the drug => check online forums for asthma patients and half of the topics is about the above 2 mentioned problems. I agree that both are not severe, often happen rather fast (so no long term effect) but they are very important for many patients. Garnhami (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Another big part that is missing, in my opinion, on this asthma page is the consequences of having it. It is somewhat mentioned in specific subchapters, but I would like to make some additions like: I read nothing about diving, changing jobs (yes, there is a link to occupational asthma, but why not mention it shortly here that often people need to change jobs),, nothing about the need for a regular check up, need to take medications consistently ... Garnhami (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So I added "Risks include thrush, the development of cataracts, and a slightly slowed rate of growth."
 * So how do you get to me removing it User:Garnhami?
 * What I did do was replace a primary source with a secondary source.
 * Please read WP:MEDRS that runs through what kind of sources need to be used. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asthma&type=revision&diff=779251978&oldid=779233152 haha
 * I saw that edit and there you removed the trush part. 1 minute later you changed it again, but for some reason I did not see that one. So I was referring to the one where trush was left out.

Garnhami (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Was adjusting over a couple of edits. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Cellulitis: Revision history
I somehow stumbled upon your revision of the ciprofloxacin in the cellulitis topic, you removed it from the treatment list (as an alternative when allergic to penicillin because no reference was given. I gave a reference and changed it again. Feel free to check it and if needed alter it. I know it is usually given for class IV cellulitis. cheers, Garnhami (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Have moved ciprofloxacin here.
 * Here is the ref
 * Were does that ref say "In those who are seriously allergic to penicillin" it can be used?
 * It is used for infections "caused by Gram-negative". Most skin infections are caused by gram positive.
 * Yes it can be used but not by itself and not for typical causes of cellulitis. This belongs in the body. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * so if I get you, the ones mentioned on the cellulitis page are only those that can be used alone ? For your remark about the reference: http://www.acutemed.co.uk/docs/Cellulitis%20guidelines,%20CREST,%2005.pdf (maybe this is a better one, I might have used the wrong link, they do state to use it when allergic to penicillin. However I do agree, it is more for intravenous use and in combination)

ALso, another source: http://www.asp.mednet.ucla.edu/files/view/guidebook/SkinandSoftTissueInfections.pdf They do use it, but as you said in combination and for gram negatives specifically. Garnhami (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Garnhami This guideline says "use for class IV" together with clindamycin if pen allergic.
 * Class for is "sepsis syndrome or necrotizing fasciitis"
 * It is not simple cellulitis. Thus should not go in the lead of the cellulitis article. It can go in the nec fash article. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Doc James aha, I see. Ok I am starting to get the set up of the articles. ThanksGarnhami (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You're actually at the top of the list, not to mention the contributions from your staff and students we also owe to you. Amazing!  Many thanks for making Wikipedia a more accurate and useful resource in this area! -- Beland (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Beland this is a really amazing community :-) One I am exceedingly proud to say I am apart off. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Doc James thank you, for your guidance--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for the cure award. I know how it feels to get it. Great😀 Also good luck in the election.  Best regards Adville (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)