User talk:Doc James/Archive 128

Advice on improving our recommending tool
Hi Doc James,

Hope you are doing well! Thank you for using our tool, and giving us feedback for improvement. We've made some improvements, and are preparing to send another round of recommendations for your project. But before that, we are considering two possible factors to implement into our algorithms potentially, and wonder what's your opinion on them.

1. Small project promotion. An editor who has a wide range of subject interest can be recommended to multiple projects according to our current algorithms. When this happens, do you think it matters to make choices among those projects, i.e., should we prioritize on those smaller projects, just randomly choose one project, or do you have other thoughts?

2. Female editor promotion. Gender imbalance has been a long-term issue in Wikipedia which consequently caused the uncoverage of many female related topics. What do you think about the idea of promoting more female editors in the recommendation list? Bobo.03 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Few thoughts. Many projects are inactive. It is best to recommend people to active projects.
 * With respect to gender, I am not sure what would be the best idea. Happy to have women recommended to WPMED. Expecially as most graduating physicians are now women.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of lipid peroxidation
You deleted the paragraph about lipid peroxidation from Atherosclerosis twice with a comment nothing but "poor source". Please explain why do you think that an article in Proc Natl Acad Sci 1984 with hundreds of citations, a review from Physiol Rev and an editorial from Atheroscrlerosis are not compliant with WP:MEDRES. 92.0.216.66 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The first source is a primary source from the 1980s (need recent reviews)
 * The second source is a review which is better and from 2004. Lots of more recent reviews based on higher quality evidence which have found no benefit from antioxidants in atherosclerosis
 * The final ref is an editorial not a review
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here it says "disappointing results of antioxidant therapy for cardiovascular risk factors in large-scale long-term randomised controlled trials" (2015 review)
 * Here it says "a number of randomized trials on the use of selected antioxidants as primary or secondary prevention strategies to decrease cardiac risk... many of these studies reported disappointing results with little or no observed risk reduction in antioxidant-treated patients" (2015 review)
 * So this "In the experimental setup, oxidative damage to lipids in atherosclerosis can be prevented by antioxidants" by the 2004 ref is no longer really supported. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right about the antioxidants, it is better to remove them. As for PUFAs, they are not in clinical trials yet, so their place should be in the Research section. I added a reference to the original paper that has the details and left the editorial as a verifying secondary source. Also, I removed a senseless sentence from the end of the section. Frankly, the whole section is quite a mess – it would be nice if you would restructure it and remove/challenge the unsourced sentences.92.0.216.66 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Please clean the whole section, not just my editing, which is sourced in accordance with WP:MEDRES (even it does not match your understanding of WP:MEDRES). There are some really poor sources or no sources at all. Otherwise I take it personally. 92.0.216.66 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are wanting WP:MEDRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Lyme Disease Transmission
Hi, I started a discussion about Lyme Disease Transmission on the Talk page. It would be great to get your input here so that we can develop a more complete section about the Transmission of Lyme. Cxbrx (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Check my edit
Hi, i uploaded for nystagmus here, please check it.--Mr.Polaz (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The prior image was more typical. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia
Hi, thank you for improving my contribution to the CLL article. It looks great.

When I wrote my contribution to the article, I was very careful to observe the following:


 * I didn't write anything that isn't true
 * I made sure every single claim was supported by a source
 * I didn't use any unreliable sources

If you look at my edit, you can see that I was very careful. I read the template that you left on my talk page, and it sounds a bit like you're talking to somebody who carelessly wrote dangerous false claims about a cure for AIDS citing a twitter post by Justin Bieber. I apologise in advance if that wasn't your intention.

Despite that, I read the description of primary, secondary and tertiary sources that you told me to read. And from the 5 reliable sources that I cited in my paragraph, you left one of them. According to the principles that you're trying to teach me, would you mind explaining why that one source is more appropriate than the other 4? Just so I know for the future.

If you could please reply here to keep all the conversation in one place that'd be great. Thanks! DrVogel (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The main think was the move to the research section of the article in question. None of the sources was a high quality review of the topic in question.
 * Poster presentations at conferences and the popular press is not typically a sufficient source for medical content. No insult was meant by the note I left on your page. This was something that took me some time to adopt to when I started editing WP aswell. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Check article for copyright material? Comment
Hi James, Is there a way to check an article for copyright material? While performing a Cochrane update, I came across quite a bit of content copied directly from the full-text of the review. Maybe worthwhile checking the rest of the article as I may have missed some. Rectal prolapse Thanks! Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:JenOttawa the key is to find the edit it was added in. That will tell you whether it was added all at once and by who. Can you let me know the text? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Skinny Mobile
The Skinny Mobile page was deleted on the 25th July '17, for the reasons that there were undisclosed paid edits made by Highbrows Engineering & Technologies. Unfortunately Skinny Mobile previously had their organic search run through a search agency who paid for these changes as part of their ongoing work with Skinny Mobile - the Skinny Mobile company team wasn't aware of the activity and were really disappointed to have their Wikipedia page removed for activity they weren't aware of. Skinny Mobile is no longer working with the company who paid for these edits. Can you let me know what steps we can take to get this page un-deleted?

I'm unsure of what content there was on the page whilst it was live, so I will provide a small amount of background incase it hasn't already been shared. Skinny Mobile is a telecommunications company owned by Spark NZ - you will see a reference to Skinny Mobile here under the section [|Industry regulation and company restructuring]. You can find a link to the primary website here. Skinny has been awarded "Most Satisfied Customers" for New Zealand Prepaid Phone Plan Providers based on the 2015 - 2017 Canstar Blue ratings.

Please let me know what other information might be helpful for you.

Link to the deletion archives: https://en.wikipedia.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Skinny_Mobile&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype

Katiaducker (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes we strongly recommend companies not hire people to write articles were they have a COI. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

COI
Dear James, Thank you for alerting me to a potential Conflict of interest issue for Philip I. Murray. I have made a disclosure in the talk page regarding connection and have clarified that there is no financial /paid for editing disclosure to make. Is there anything further I need to do? Best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamdasm (talk • contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your relationship to this work collegues user:shamdasm? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We work within a University-affiliated research group. Shamdasm (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay so still a COI. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Thanks and have replied. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Cytosol vs. ICF
I'm really struggling to find a source that tells the exact difference between cytosol and ICF. The 2 articles that we currently have that touch on this, Cytosol and Fluid_compartments, only say that "most of ICF is cytosol". But none of the articles, and no reliable source that I've been able to find, says exactly what is in the ICF but not in the cytosol. So, are you aware of any reliable sources that say what else is in ICF apart from cytosol? Thanks! DrVogel (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Appears per here to be the same. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Thrombopoietic agent" & "Thrombopoietin receptor agonist"
Dear Doc James,

I suggest that the redirect page: Thrombopoietin receptor agonist to be redirected to Thrombopoietic agent. Please check them. --محمود (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Mahmoudalrawi agree. You want to make the change or should I. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

OTRS issue
On the one hand I'm pushing an experiment to help manage the OTRS backlog by pushing some things on wiki:

On the other hand, a medical article might not be the right place to start this. If you get a moment could you glance at: ticket:2018021110005401

To see if more aggressive handling is warranted. S Philbrick (Talk)  21:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure will look :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick This ref confirms their is no concern. IMO you can close the ticket. You can tell them we looked at the issue in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

A talk page slip
I am sure it was not your intention, but in this edit you removed a comment by Jytdog. DuncanHill (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:DuncanHill yes not sure what happened. Has been fixed  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All's well that ends well. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

NanoTherm therapy of MagForce AG
Hi Doc James,

I made a proposal to source information about the NanoTherm therapy, see here. (I reverted it immediately.) You gave advice to look for better sources. What do you think? Do these sources apply to WP:MEDRS? Deutsches Ärzteblatt is a weekly German-language medical magazine. Onkologe and International Journal of Hyperthermia are medical journals. Atomiccocktail (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Atomiccocktail, User:Jytdog has more experience in this area. Will ask him to take a look. I am currently traveling. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

hi
hope all is well...per I have done, let me know if anything needs to be changed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Ozzie10aaaa will take a look. Appears phabricator is down right now but will try again in a few hours. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

ping
You might be interested in. Please do encourage anyone to pitch in there. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:JzG Looks good. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!
Thanks a lot Doc James for excellent graph! -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Abhijeet Safai glad you find it useful :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. In fact, it took me so long to understand its importance which you had understood in 2010, about 8 years back! Thank you once again! -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Mitragyna speciosa
Looks like is on the warpath again. --Calton | Talk 05:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC
 * Okay thanks will take a look. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So I'm on the warpath, while you're on your third or fourth reversion? No, I'm simply attempting to make one edit that makes a whole lot of sense, and no case or consensus against it exists on the talk page. At this point there are 7-8 other editors who agree with my position, and probably a smaller group of much more zealous editors on the other side. Ptb011985 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The solution would be a WP:RfC Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

could use better source on Autism
for what reason could we use a better source? The source I had was a good source relating to autism in girls. Angela Maureen (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A source per WP:MEDRS would be better. I kept the source and simple moved to the body of the text.
 * Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Glossary infobox
I just created this page as a back-end template for 2 article glossaries ( and ), although I suspect that it will be transcluded into additional glossary templates and relevant articles by other editors at some point in the future.

Since I'm probably the only person who is watching this page, can you indefinitely semi-protect this template to prevent template+article vandalism? If someone were to make an edit like this, it would affect several high-traffic medical articles.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Might also be worth indefinitely semi-protecting Template:Addiction glossary for the same reason (also, see: transclusion pageviews link for the addiction glossary). I realize the normal venue for this sort of request is WP:RPP, but I figure you're more familiar with these templates than admins who frequent the RPP page.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. Template:Glossary infobox should probably be indefinitely template protected, so I'm requesting that at WP:RPP.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 05:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Only used 42 times at this point. Unless I am counting it wrong. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not so much the transclusion count as it is the pageviews of its transclusions that would make it a "highly visible" template. E.g., this template is indefinitely template protected, but it's only transcluded to 1 page in the mainspace – the main page – which has a massive number of daily pageviews.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 09:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

PTSD Resources
Hi, Doc James, It's been a while since we last talked! The Board of the Society for Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology and the Division Trio List of the American Psychological Association pulled together a list of resources in response to the shooting in Florida this week. The list has been sent over multiple professional listservs, and we are trying to add them to Wikipedia on a couple relevant pages to help the public find the information. We grouped the resources in response to the suggestion to not indiscriminately add a long list. If you still have concerns or suggestions, let's talk at your convenience (eay@unc.edu or my talk page; also happy to chat by phone again, too). Thanks, tons, and I hope all is well with you! Best regards! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Typically we provide one link to an organization as an external link.
 * 12 links to NTSCN in the EL section IMO is not appropriate / undue weight.
 * What I would recommend is NTSCN create an overview page and we can link to it on some articles.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Side Effects
There is already an existing consensus on the meaning of side effect and adverse effect. According to wikipedia entry for "side effect": "In medicine, a side effect is an effect, whether therapeutic or adverse, that is secondary to the one intended; although the term is predominantly employed to describe adverse effects, it can also apply to beneficial, but unintended, consequences of the use of a drug."

Thus, the terms "side effect" and "adverse effect" are *not* interchangeable.

Many articles about drugs have a section about therapeutic effects of drugs and a separate section about harmful effects of drugs. This section on harmful effects of drugs is most accurately titled "adverse effects."

Please accept the consensus definition of these terms, as indicated in the wikipedia entry for "side effect." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 17:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We use the two interchangeably per here. If you want to propose removing side effects as an option the discussion goes there. In common language they are used interchangeably. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"Patient" vs "person", in WP:MEDMOS
Hi there! Thank you for the correction in the "Prader-Willi" article. You referred me to MEDMOS while reverting my edit which changed "person" to "patient". Sure enough, MEDMOS identifies "use [of] the word "patients" or "cases" when describing those who have a medical condition" as one of the "signs of writing or editing for (other) healthcare professionals", and therefore, undesirable. Fair enough. But further down, in the section entitled "Careful language", MEDMOS says "Sometimes positive and negative medical test results can have, respectively, negative and positive implications for  the patient . For example, a negative breast cancer-screening test is very positive for the person being screened." (My  emphasis .) Note that MEDMOS itself is referring to the person being screened as ... [drum roll, please]... "THE PATIENT", violating its own guideline! I hope this is as amusing to you as it is to me.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * MEDMOS really doesn't seem to address this issue clearly. The basic point is that a patient is a person who is undergoing active treatment by a health care professional. Merely having a condition, or being screened for a condition, does not make one a patient. The word should only be used when it is helpful to convey that the person is being treated for the condition. For example, it would be very confusing to change a sentence that refers to the doctor-patient relationship to "doctor-person relationship". Looie496 (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * RE: "Merely having a condition, or being screened for a condition, does not make one a patient."


 * I'm not so sure about that! "Patient" is Latin for "one who suffers".  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We generally use "person with X" rather than "patient with X". Makes Wikipedia more general in tone IMO. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Latin derivations don't always reflect the current meaning of a word. Wiktionary and every other dictionary I have checked define a patient as a person (or animal) receiving, or scheduled to receive, medical treatment. "Sufferer" is sometimes given as an archaic meaning. Looie496 (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to your WP Medicine
Hi Doc James,

Our system generated a list of potential new editors for your project. They may be interested in collaborating with your project members on your project's articles. As you will notice, the list contains both experienced editors and newcomers. Both are valuable for Wikipedia and your project. Please go ahead and introduce your project to them, and point them to some project tasks to start with. We also provide a template invitation message to make it easier to contact the potential new editors. Just click the invite link to write the invitation message.

We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system. Please let me know below if you have any general feedback about our recommendations. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool thanks User:Bobo.03. Still on holidays but will take a look. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Doc James, I update the recommendation list sent to you earlier. I fixed some bugs in the previous version (as you might have seen that some editors on the previous list were not quite active). Very sorry about it, but now, everything should be good! Please take a look, and let me know what you think! Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)