User talk:Doc James/Archive 17

Otitis media
Please have a boo at (PMC1876255) and at. It looks to me like support for the text you deleted, but I'll leave it to you.LeadSongDog come howl!  22:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

2 quick questions
Thanks, these articles look perfect. In the WHCoA page there are topics in red, linking to a page that hasnt been created yet. Should I leave these articles in red, or take off the hyperlink? Also, I was getting most of my information off the WHCoA report from 2005 (for the section on 2005) and was wondering how often I would reference. As a student I dont know anything about the Conference other than the info I am getting, so I know this is very important. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdocgr (talk • contribs) 16:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Boston College Neuroscience Project
Hi Doc James, if you're still willing and able to help review a few of the students' topics for our project, I'd appreciate your expertise. Here are the details again: I have an 8 point rubric that you can use to make quantitative judgments about how much improvement to the stub has been made by the students (and any other editors that help out during our course period) between 3/1/11 and the "final" version at the end of the course (~2nd week of May). Would you be willing to review Monoamine transporter, Neurapraxia, Neurolaw, and Pia mater and score them using the rubric? I would be most appreciative, and of course would acknowledge your efforts in the manuscript that will be written up detailing our project. Thanks much,NeuroJoe (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Off at meeting for the next 10 days. Will take give you a hand after Mar 31st when I get back if that is not too late. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be great, thanks.NeuroJoe (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful
Pending changes are there to ensure that edits are properly done. Your acceptance of these edits contained grammar errors.--Crossmr (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to correct the grammar further.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

PC "oppose"
Hi there. Thanks for contributing to the discussion on Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011.

Can you please elaborate on your reasoning. Do you have any alternative suggestion?

The idea of the proposal is to find a way forwards; to break a deadlock. At the moment, PC cannot be added to new articles - because the trial is over. But we cannot come to any agreement about a policy-way of using it; partly, I'm sure that is because so many are frustrated by a 2-month trial turning into a 9-month trial.

There's no approval for current use of PC - and that needs sorting out, somehow.

Personally, I think that ending the trial gives us the best chance of doing that. If PC were removed from the current articles, then people might be more prepared to discuss a possible way of using it, for the future. If it isn't removed - if the trial never ends - we're stuck.

Any and all ideas are very welcome - best discussed on that page, WP:PCRFC.

Thanks,  Chzz  ► 11:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see what the issue is. Things continue going in circles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirection of brand names
There is actually a bot currently doing just that, using the drugbank database. You can follow the progress here: User:PotatoBot/Lists/Trade_names_log. You can find out a bit more about it in the wt:pharm archives. --WS (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oi
Dude, I know this is a little late, but why did you take down my page for Fatty Upper Pelvic Area, it was mostly valid information and you took it down before I linked everything out to reliable sources.

--Qwazwas (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Drug sections and ordering
I'm a bit concerned about edits made over the last two days where you have reorganised a number of drug articles. I think the approach you are taking is wrong: you're just making the section headings comply with some style guide that isn't even based on best-practice. We have so few decent drug articles that it is very hard to look at them and see any pattern or anything worth basing a recommendation on. The problems with many of our drug articles are not due to poor section headings.

Look at metformin, which I'd say was a good example of editors trying to write their own clinical guidelines because they think they can do better than the experts. The whole "Medical uses" section reads like the background evidence sections of a clinical guideline. The editors are keen to show the evidence for metformin's efficacy or lack of it in various areas. But only in the lead do we read that it is a first-line choice for type 2 diabetes, particularly the overweight. The medical uses section doesn't say how it is used, for how long it is used, what the alternatives might be and why the doctor might chose them instead or after trying metformin. Instead, we get told of lots of drug trials, which really belongs in a history section or possible a section dealing solely with efficacy if the efficacy is a notable point. The same is true of the other indications and the "investigational findings" section doesn't belong here at all since I presume metformin isn't actually used to ward off pancreatic cancer. There seems to be plenty to say about the "side-benefits" of metformin on people who are getting it but that doesn't belong in the "medical uses" section, and because we're not writing a literature review, it probably shouldn't discussing the studies in detail and just concentrate on noting the facts.

Look at the indications from the BNF:
 * "Metformin is the drug of first choice in overweight patients in whom strict dieting has failed to control diabetes, if appropriate it may also be considered as an option in patients who are not overweight. It is also used when diabetes is inadequately controlled with sulfonylurea treatment. When the combination of strict diet and metformin treatment fails, other options include..."

Where is that mentioned in the body of the article? I think a big problem with our medical articles is that they jumble up discussion of research, weighing the evidence, and actual clinical practice or expert recommendation. We forget that encyclopaedias are meant to present the facts, they are not a newspaper or journal discussing the latest research and they are not the evidence section of a clinical guideline.

What I'm trying to say is that worrying about section headings, ordering and drug boxes isn't really what we should be focussed on. Especially when we're not really sure what the best is. We should be more concerned with the paragraphs between the sections and what content this encyclopaedia should present and with what weight. Colin°Talk 19:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So my argument for starting in this manner is if the medication articles do not have structure to them, if any section can come in any order under any heading, then I find it hard to improve the content. When I first began with WP:MED articles there had a similar problem but just to a lesser degree. I probably changed the section ordering of at least 500 of them. Now when I read a journal or review I can go and quickly see if the content is covered. I know exactly where in the article the content should be.


 * Medication articles have many of the same issues that disease articles do with too great a basis on primary research. So I too am worried about the content. But I see the suggestions I have put forth as an important first step in dealing with it.


 * So if I understand your comment correctly it is what should the sections contain? If we look at the section on "indications" what do you envision this ideally containing and what sort of refers do you see supporting the content. Do we want to contain a list of officially approved uses with the body that recommends it with links to said bodies statements? Review articles that provide support for different applications? A bit of both... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This site btw provides both research evidence and FDA approved use and .  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have so little free time for WP at the moment, so I take my hat off to you wrt your contributions, effort and knowledge. When I worked on the early MEDMOS, I knew the sections for drug articles were little more than an educated guess and probably didn't match any existing article. I would be nervous if you updated 500 articles, say, to a set of sections that is still under discussion and without solid support. It might be better to update and fix a small group of drugs to be held as an example not only of decent section choice but also reasonable content and sourcing. Colin°Talk 07:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I was only planning on ordering a few dozen articles just to get a felling of the content. I am going to wait until there is more of a consensus to do more. I am still not sure how best to deal with substances that are primarily for recreational use yet but also have a medical aspect ( like cocaine ) verses drugs that are primarily medical but have abuse potential like gravol. Versus the ones that are in the middle like narcotics. Will bring this up one the current discussion reach some consensus... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My biggest concern with WP medical articles is that too many have "A study in 1980 on 20 overweight patients with diabetes found that XXX" when we should just be saying "XXX". Newspapers discuss research because they are interested in documenting what is changing and what is new. Newspapers do not write articles if nothing has changed. Similarly for medical journals and magazines. We fall into that trap too because we find these things interesting. But it is not what an encyclopaedia is primarily for -- which is to state facts. For many straightforward and boring drugs, there may be no need to discuss research studies at all. For others (like metformin) there's quite a lot of active and historical research that is notable. MEDMOS lacks a section specific to research (though the PHARM guide has one it currently only covers ongoing research that has yet to produce a change in practice). Some research might belong in the history section and some might deserve a "Clinical studies" section like Drugs.com has. Just as I believe the Indications section should be devoid of all discussion of research, many other facts should also avoid this. Perhaps we should propose a new section to contain discussion of studies?  Currently, I'm confused about where this should be discussed as there are two projects and two style guides.
 * BTW, there are also chemicals that have industrial use as well as medical application. For example, paraldehyde. Colin°Talk
 * Yes I too was confused where to discuss this. Thus I proposed the merge of PHARM as a task force which did not go over particularly well. As the group seems active we should continue the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference
Do you have a ref for the addition to scabies? Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 "The pathognomonic signs of scabies are burrows, erythematous papules, and generalized pruritus (also on non-infested skin) with nocturnal predominance.3 Reddish to brownish extremely pruritic nodules of 2 to 20 mm in diameter may be also present on the genitalia (more commonly in males than in females), buttocks, groin, and axillary regions. Patients usually have secondary papules, pustules, vesicles, and excoriations. Every patient with intense pruritus should be suspected of having scabies, but especially if a family member reports similar symptoms.3 A diagnosis can be made clinically if a burrow is detected at a typical predilection site and if the lesion itches severely. In this case, even a single burrow is pathognomonic.2"

Sorry, that's the nearest I can come to what I remember. Personally, it's difficult for me to tell a burrow from a mosquito bite (unless it's in a place mosquitos are not likely to get to). But I've always found linear closely-spaced collections of "mosquito-bites" on thin, hairless skin, along with a terrible itch, pathognomonic. Quite literally, nothing else does that. S B Harris 06:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

New Article
Thanks for your feedback on my first article, Medical amnesty policies. I have created a second page, Public health concerns in Onondaga County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrynes (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Have commented. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Your English language skills
Frankly, I find it rather shocking that a physician can border on illiteriate. "Per here image size is usually not used but left to default Wikipedia:IMAGE#Forced_image_size. This then allows users to use whatever default setting they wish which are under my preferences." --Kristoferb (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What happens when you go too long without sleeping... -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Doc James, as usual, is rather reserved in his response. But heck [sic], if we are having a spontaneous spasm of frankness here, I personally find it rather ironic that such an observant master and critic of English usage fumbled the ball on the word "illiterate"! LOL! In addition, given this thread, its a bit shocking to me that Kristoferb does not appear in any of my Thesauri as a synonym for anus! :-O Sincerely:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Rights
Hey Doc:

Thanks very much for your trust and assistance. I appreciate it. Sorry to come unglued on you.

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Metformin
Hi James, I don't mean this as WP:OWN or anything, but I am not really happy with your recent edits to metformin being made without discussion. It's not a big deal (and most were indeed an improvement), but discussion is still ongoing at WT:PHARM—I'd really appreciate it if you could wait for a consensus to develop before implementing changes to good and featured articles. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is however general agreement to move the history section to near the end. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree on that point. Have replied more thoroughly over at my Talk page. (Sorry for the drive-by post, by the way—I've been pressed for time.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Philcha
Jmh649, what do you make of this? Can the Copulation article really stand on its own? Flyer22 (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion is now at Talk:Copulation. I'll bring other editors in on it as well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing
There is no need for you guys to simply delete all the images from all the pages they were on. For example the image is a image that is perfectly fitted for the page on Moustache and Pencil Moustache and the image of is perfectly fit for the page on wife and engagement. Not all the edits you have reverted were simply vandalism, I tried to improve articles by adding illustrations to the articles. How is that not a good thing? Batavier2.0 (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no need to revert ALL changes just like that. Some were perfectly fit for the pages I included them in. Batavier2.0 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This user appears to be a sock puppet and is adding these images to many pages. Sockpuppet_investigations/Batavier2.0 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

tension pneumo
I was under the impression that different type of traumatic injury to the pleura should be defined by the mechanism of injury and resulting pathophysiology, rather than by the patient's response to intervention. I'm just a medical student, and I will accept that perhaps my sources are simply too basic and not representative of clinical reality. However, the article in Emerg Med that you cited does state: "If the pleural defect functions as a one way valve, air enters the pleural cavity on inspiration but is unable to exit on expiration, leading to increasing ipsilateral IPP. This will cause further lung collapse, chest wall expansion, diaphragmatic depression, and (dependent on mediastinal distensability) contralateral lung compression." More over most of the definitions listed in BOX 1 are a direct result of this air trapping phenomenon. A lesser response to oxygen, confusion, and hypotension is readily explained by the competing positive pressure of the pleural space, hypoxemia, and compression of the mediastinum. I do understand that often clinical reality blurs the clean definitions presented in medical school textbooks, but I also think that an understanding of the nuances of closely related pathologies begins with understanding the basic pathological and anatomical features that make them distinct. Lastly, to not mention this very basic concept of a one-way-valve in "types of pneumothorax" section of this article would be a major omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfly000 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Weston Price and focal infection theory
I am currently having a devil of a time trying to keep the Weston Price and focal infection theory articles NPOV with regards to MEDRS and given you are a doctor I thought that you should take a look and give me some pointers on some additional sources to clean up these articles.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not really edit biographies... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sv 2 Gy
I noticed that whey you were changing Seivert to Gray units at Acute radiation syndrome, you left one column of the table with Sv. Was that an oversight? I don't have the ref available.LeadSongDog come howl!  00:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes oversight. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

MEDMOS?
Just curious: in an edit to Alopecia, you used the acronym "MEDMOS" in the summary. What does this mean? Thanks. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind - immediately after writing that it occurred to me that it might be a WP page, hence WP:MEDMOS. Not enough coffee. Thanks! Mark Shaw (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries I just I should add the WP into it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to get the notes at the top of my medical amnesty policy article removed? specifically the one that advises introducing more links to the article. Emrynes (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only '''5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Chime in on reliable sources on Talk:Scar
Hey, I'm having a disagreement that's going on way too long at Talk:Scar, would you give a quick opinion. I'm really, really sorry linking you to a wall of text. It might be best to page down all the way to the bottom and then start reading up. Thanks for the clean up on Scar, btw. Much of that was on my list of things to do, but I've gotten side-tracked. v/r, Rknight (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Review request
Am thinking about nominating Diabetes in dogs as a GA. Had a look at peer-review volunteers and see that none of those for medicine appear to still be active editors, so am wondering if you might have a look at it when you can, tell me what you think and what needs to be fixed. Thanks! We hope (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Need help
Dear James, I have tried my best to create an article Death Anxiety (Psychology). I need help from experienced authors to shape it better. Will u pls help!?Shoovrow (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Obesity in a aged lady of 60 years in India,
She is mother of 4, widow, happily in Joint family with 3 sons, daughter in laws & grand children.She was treated last for rheumatic heel & cured on medication. Gradually she has started gaining weight & got swollen. as of today has problem of walking standing etc.Expecting some hormone problem of the Thyrod glands were tested & found to indicate normalcy. What are the tests to be made to dignose the cause so as to search for a remedy? What precautions are to be taken to stall agravagation of the condition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.131.186 (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry I am unable to give medical advice on Wikipedia. I recommend you see a doctor in person. All the best. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mefloquine edits
Doc,

When discussing Mefloquine, you must consider four areas seperately.....safety, tolerability, compliance and efficacy.

The 1 to 2 weeks only has to do with tolerability.....you make a big reach to assume it has to do with efficacy....particularly when Ref. 1 says nothing about it. Did you not get the point about loading dose that was not FDA approved?

Yes, steady state means efficacy...a person needs more than 500ng per ml serum level to be protected and it takes more than two weeks to get to that level. I have actaully seen papers that say 1000ng/ml.

I took the 7 to 9 weeks out a review paper(from Schlagenhauf too...) and have two non review papers fromt he US military to back it up, and you remove it. Then you replace it with 1 to 2 weeks from a website???........which makes no realtion between the 1 to 2 weeks and efficacy....It just says to take it for 1 to 2 weeks....The 1 to 2 weeks realtes to the possibility of an initial reaction...to see if a person is one of the rare exceptions that has a reaction in the first few pills. They don't want this happening when the person is already on their trip. It has nothing to to with building up to a protective level. Call Doc Whitman at Bethesada and he will explain it to you.

Per your requirements, the only legitimate sources are review papers. I assume the only other legitimate source is the product guide from Roche. I am confused then why Ref 1 is allowed when the drug guides I posted from the Walter Reed Deployment Health Clinical Center that were taken down.Moewackit (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

vandalism of articles
Doc, It seems as if may have put misinformation onto Wikipedia's article on abortion. I checked the history of the article and all of your contributions to the article have been erased and changed/deleted. Also, some of the articles editor's have commented on it in the article's talk page. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but don't use it to vandalize articles. Please work to keep Wikipedia neutral. Wikiagoo (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide difs to support this. Expecially since few if any of my edits have been deleted... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't take this post too seriously. The user has a fairly long string of both silly and then subtle vandalism to articles.  The attempt to imporove abortion articles looks sincere but the reverts had nothing to do with you and everything to do with changes that didn't reflect sources.  (I'm uninvolved, I just perused the above editor's contributions). Ocaasi c 01:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but gave this user the benefit of the doubt.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
— This, that, and the other (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, Doc - Kwami is doing it AGAIN
Sorry to bother you, Doc ... but this Kwami guy is REALLY MAKING ME MAD! Just a little while ago he replaces the LEGITIMATE hyphen in Salivary gland-like carcinoma of the lung with some "enema-dash" or other Linguistics Club "trivioid device" within the Salivary gland-like carcinoma of the lung article.

I know I'm supposed to be CIVIL ... but this crap is getting RIDICULOUS. I tell you, Doc, this is INFURIATING. God, with 870 million language articles for him to work on, he's gotta screw with MY "babies". Best I can tell, the man wouldn't know a pulmonary carcinoma if one grew out of his thorax, invaded the nearest wall, penetrated through it and metastasized clear down to the main generator of the building! GRRRRRR!

If you get a second, check his Talk Page - I BEGGED HIM to leave the lung cancer articles alone for now ... maybe ruin them LAST, after he hypertrivializes the OTHER 15.9 million articles I have little to do with.

WTF should I do, Doc??? I seem to remember that THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS for his changes, and as I recall, (a) yourself, (b) My Core Competency is Competence, (c) WhatamIDoing, (4) Axl, (5) Colin, and several others opposed his changes (count was like 8-2 AGAINST the changes on ALL except "non-small cell carcinoma", which we BOTH know is legit).

Salivary gland-like carcinoma DOES have a legitimate hyphen there (like epithelial-myoepithelial carcinoma should). But NOW Mr. Kwami has stuck in a line that's so long it resembles the great John Holmes famous "Johnson" (if you get my drift).

When you can, get back to me on this. You're my favorite honcho around here. Help a guy out. Lung cancer articles are MY BABIES, and within the next 2 years, I wanted to make these articles ARE THE BEST ANYWHERE. The articles I wrote on Combined small cell lung carcinoma and Large cell lung carcinoma with rhabdoid phenotype are as comprehensive as you can get in the literature ANYWHERE. There would be like 50-60 more variants done this way before I'm done, and updated regularly to stay current. However, this crap makes me so mad I'm about to say "hell with it" and just quit.

NOTE ADDED EX POST FACTO: Per the diplomatic gentleman (and my new friend), I have cut/redacted/repasted my FIGURATIVE previous comments a bit.

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cliff, rant mode is understandable (in theory, I don't know the details here), but rant mode involving hypothetical physical harm, in ALL CAPS no less, is a very bad idea--it creates suggestions of violence and intimidation, it poses potential legal problems, and it ventures into WP:VIOLENCE territory, which (though just an essay) is strongly against talking about such things. I'm sure you meant it figuratively, but you should redact or rephrase that comment in the interest of not having other people take it the wrong way, and keeping disputes civil.  (note, I'm just a random talk-page passerby and not an admin, but I doubt many would disagree).  Cheers, Ocaasi c 02:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC) small correction, WP:Harm was the wrong link and WP:Violence is just an essay.  It's still a good idea though, albeit for a different policy justification (WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA would do). Ocaasi c 02:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ocaasi ... you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. My earnest apologies, and THANK YOU. No excuses from me, just some "mitigation" details => I have had MORE FUN doing this writing here at Wikipedia than anything else I've done in several years. I was EARNESTLY looking forward to working VERY HARD for a LONG TIME to be the BADDEST DUDE ON THE BLOCK in terms of high quality cancer article submission, and in the end, to provide universally available UBER-COMPREHENSIVE resources on these lethal diseases THAT EXCEED IN QUALITY EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE!

Now - arguably because some linguistics expert just CAN NOT CHILL, and leave THIS particular <0.00001% or so of the Wiki articles ALONE - STUFF HE KNOWS DIDDLY SQUAT ABOUT - well, I've about HAD it! His messes and his constant aggravation just are too much EVERY SINGLE DAY!

Thanks for posting me though - its much appreciated. Question: would challenging someone to a duel be considered a problem?

Very best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A semantic duel, an intellectual duel--no problem. A duel with NERF foam fencing foils?  Can't do it.  (see also: Ahimsa).  Cheers! Ocaasi c 02:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks/Sorry (no hyphen included)
Hey Doc:

Sorry about all the trouble and whining. I don't mean to be a douche.

Your friend: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. We will see what happens. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ADHD image
That was your third revert -- I don't plan on reverting again, but I can't speak for the rest of WP... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You do not have consensus to remove the image. Please get consensus before removing again. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * *looks upward* Yeah, I wrote what I thought I did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Importance scale for Anal sex article
Hey, Doc. Should anal sex really be categorized as "low importance" for WikiProject Medicine, given the risks that come with anal sex? I would think it would at least be categorized as "mid" before "low." I mean, this isn't the same as the relatively low spread of infections that result from oral sex. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure but it is not top importance as it was before. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for changing it to "mid." And by "not top importance as it was before," do you mean just in regard to WikiProject Medicine? Because I'm not seeing how that applies to the medical world in general. New reports continue to come out about the rise of anal sex/unprotected anal sex and the subsequent rise of STD/STI infection rates. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going by the def here "Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to medicine. Strong interest from non-professionals around the world. Usually a large subject with many associated sub-articles. Less than 1% of medicine-related articles achieve this rating."  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. And I understand going by that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mefloquinew 7 to 9 weeks
I spoke with one of the experts about this issue. When he has a chance, he will send a note to you. He said that it is not mathematically possible to build up to protective level in 1 to 2 weeks. In fact that actual level could be 1000ng/ml. The number 620 ng/ml from Dr. Lobel is actaully a low ball.

Please send me the specific review documents that specicall say 1 to 2 weeks "to be effective". They need to be confronted with the actual data and corrected.

You must understand that there are cases of people contracting falciparum malaria in the first weeks while on mefloquine. This is a safety issue.

The problem is that the pharmokinetice from person to person is much more variable from person to person than say a more common drug like asprin. To publically make a blanket statement that mefloquine is effective in the first two weeks puts people at risk.Moewackit (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sexual intercourse
We're back to this again. Mind weighing in? Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what else to state on this matter. I just cannot agree that we need yet another article on sexual intercourse/sexual activity. If you'd rather not weigh in on the matter at the Sexual intercourse talk page, then letting me know what you think of the matter here on your own talk page would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture regarding Inguinal hernia
Hello there,

I was curious if the photo of the inguinal hernia taken on or uploaded on 2/27/11 is direct or indirect. Can a person tell the difference by looking at one? I have a doctor's appointment on Monday. I am trying to get all the facts I can. Also, what are your thoughts about surgery? Based on my own research, is it not strangulated, but it is incarcerated. It goes away while lying down, and by the end of the day, it is there and I can feel it. Can you take a moment and share your thoughts or point in some directions? I am kind of nervous. I have seen many, many sites and information. I'd like to understand your opinion. It does not hurt, but I can feel it throbbing after a long day.

Thanks, Daniel Da90802 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry not sure. I think it was direct... -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

PTSD article - your suggested Chochran review article has been used
Thanks for the reference! I have finally looked carefully at the article you pointed out and found an excellent place to include it in the article. Better late than never, eh? Keep 'em comin'. Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unreasonable reverts of Nausea
...and by reading your Talk Page, you seem to have a knack for reverts. It is unreasonable, and at times, AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY, to revert good faith, factual edits, only for the lack of citations. At the very least you should have flagged the added facts with "citation needed" - and NOT revert them - something I had to learn right now, too, and in the process also learned that your reverts, according to policy, were uncalled for. I had to take a very long time to do a job you could have, as a DOCTOR (!), done in 3 seconds - find reliable medical resources. If wish to leave the job for someone else, then add "citation needed". Do NOT revert or erase a good-faith factual edit. Romancer (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. Please add references. BTW it only becomes factual once you have added a WP:RS Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Again, Doc
Again, James, I'm sorry. I blew a fuse BIG TIME. And I'm particularly embarrassed with regard to you, Axl, WaId, RexxS, Mccic, Colin - all of you "went to bat for me", so to speak, and I made you look like you were hangin' out with a meth head!!! LOL! Jeez, that Kwami's attitude and smugness ENRAGED me more than anyone in recent memoryq! And then toss in a couple of random "flake-balls" popping in out of nowhere to boot me in the inguinal region while I was distracted, and old ... well ... old Cliffy, who was the 185 lb. boxing champion at U.M.R. in his day, was just was "ready to dance" if you know what I mean!!!

Ya know, Doc, what REALLY chafed my glutes BADLY again is when I TRIED to tell the "big guys" to JUST PLEASE LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE - its all readily available by examining (a) his talk page, and (b) the search results from ANI archives.

I'm telling you there were something like 15-20 similar incidents of him TRASHING vast areas of the project without cleaning up ... AND ARGUABLY EVEN WORSE, some misuse of certain tools he is entrusted with ... over the past 30 months ... yet the dude has had NO PUNITIVE DISCIPLINARY BLOCKS or ANYTHING ELSE in ANY CASE.

BUT ... SWEET LORD JESUS KNOWS that you let proud, high-strung old Cliffy spout off by flapping his yap a time or three, and - like you said yourself - MAKE MANY ACCURATE AND WEIGHTY POINTS, and by-God you'd thought the April 1945-vintage Red Army had shown up with automatic weapons drawn rushed me like a Blitzkreig, ready to block me, ban me, revoke my birthday, force me to take androgen blockers, YOU NAME IT. It was just SURREAL!

In any case, THANKS SO MUCH for your courtesy, both before and after my flogging and self-inflicted wounds, and please rest assured that I will be going back to cranking out articles, patrolling, reverting vandals, copyediting, etc. Let me know what I can do for you, if anything, and thanks yet again my friend!

Oh yeah ... here's a little something you deserve, from me, as a token. TTYL.