User talk:Doc James/Archive 25

Edit to Pica article
Hello James- Our group recently updated our references section as you suggested for the good article nomination. Please take another look at it and let us know if there are any changes you would like us to make. Thank you!

Kelly (Kyokoyama (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

Substance abuse - Cost
Dear James, I have just found you have reverted the changes I introduced regarding costs. All the text I had introduced came from a paper I wrote. I would appreciate your comments regarding the reversion. Thanks a lot. Kind regards, Luis Prieto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prietol (talk • contribs) 00:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

All you would have had to do was to revert it
You don't have to send a "Welcome" message to somebody who has been editing as long as I have. (But thanks for the welcome anyway. What? No cookies?) Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes sorry. Sent some cookies... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor Outreach event
Hello. I've just been alerted to the WikiProject:Medicine event next August. As you may know, I've been helping organise people at Cancer Research UK to get more involved in editing Wikipedia, and wanted to offer my services - if appropriate - to speak or help out with the event if you need me. I'd be happy to talk about how we got the initiative off the ground here, and the progress we've made. No worries if it doesn't fit well with the programme but thought I'd offer! :) Let me know if I can be of assistance. HenryScow (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Send you a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows: Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
 * Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador program
Hi James! The Steering Committee is updating our roster of Online Ambassadors to get an accurate list of active participants. There is an indication on the USEP list of OAs that you may be working on the Physiology for Public Health, but I don't see an article by that name. Are you currently working with a class through the Wikipedia Education Program? Maybe taking a break? Can you give me an idea of your status with the program? Thanks. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 00:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am working with any class that edits medical/pharmaceutical article. It is a little overwhelming to tell you the truth. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

re cite pmid, Baclofen
I have undone your revert. It also reverted my repairs to the references, where they were garbled (two refs merged into one) or duplicate (same ref cited twice in a row) and my repairs to the patents. I went through the refs one by one to check for bugs, same for the patents. Where fulltext links were involved I put them into the transcluded template. It was not just a change of format to cite pmid. Please reconsider, look at the resulting reference list after cleanup. 70.137.152.169 (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

See also section
Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of that. Ryan Vesey Review me!  04:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nimetazepam
I patched my changes back and squeezed the linefeeds out. Take a look. Where was the consensus reached not to format templates with linefeeds? Are there any programmers among the people who like such "write-only" formatting? I mean, personally I do not mind, but it looks horrible and is not well readable and changable. Probably for people who still program in HEX! Take a look at the medical discussion, some people like cite pmid and automated tools. Maybe we can discuss that a bit? Where are programmers? 70.137.152.169 (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are not really any available programers that I have been able to find. The software is primarily written by volunteers. If you know some that could help out... -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Substance abuse - cost
Dear James, Thank you for your response. Yes, I am happy to donate the text to Wikipedia. I have edited the text again. This time I have just introduced some examples to clarify what Health and Public Order and Safety means. Beyond that I am not sure how to make the text more readable. Kind regards, Luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prietol (talk • contribs) 09:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Alprazolam ref style
I have listened to you and have not changed to cite pmid or any change of ref style, just maintained what was there and added info where required, applied corrections etc. look more closely. It uses cite book, cite web, cite journal unchanged. It was full with bugs and typos. You are too fast. 70.137.140.141 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the dif in question you have changed refs that run over one line to refs that run over many lines. That is the issue I am having. Cheers -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Redone, no one-liners changed to many lines. But I removed the bugs and inaccuracies in the citations. Now don't overdo it. 70.137.140.141 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is what you are looking at different than what I am looking at . I see you taking refs over 1 line and putting them over many lines which I find a pain and there is not consensus for.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats an illusion by the bad diff tool. It moves a whole block on minor changes, and only later synchronizes. To verify this look at the diff and disregard the blocks, or point me manually to such a change you mean to see! If you find it tell me and I will change to your desire. But do not undo all. 70.137.140.141 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice in this edit I moved refs over many lines to over one line.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats not directly apparent when opening for edit. I think the diff tool does something funny with linefeeds. will take a look again. 70.137.145.223 (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Contentious edits
Please stop reverting edits that are cited. This time you are not complying with site policy.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.94 (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The edits in question are to onychomycosis, both refs cited are invalid. One is about undecylenic acid in psoriasis and from 1949, mentions antimycotic use in a sidenote. The other is about undecylenic acid protecting guinea pigs and mice from herpes model infection. Have reverted this for you. Cheers! 70.137.145.223 (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that 70. Precisely my point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. It is always good seeing you around... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you M aen K. A.  Talk  17:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good block
I'm pretty sure the trend of IP vandalism from this bunch isn't going to be much different a year from now. Not that I blame them for it, but for the sake of the project you might want to just indef it. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:199.219.144.51
Hi,thank you for dealing with this user. I know that the current burst of vandalism was unpleasant but it just strikes me that a block of 6 months seems rather a lot at this stage. The only previous ban of 31 hours was some years go and, because blocks of IPs affect many users, we tend to escalate the blocks rather more slowly. Just a thought, best, TerriersFan (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can list positive edits coming from this IP I will reconsider. Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't been through all the contributions but, on my talk page you asked for a couple, and here are two that I have found quickly : . Best, TerriersFan (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay have changed it to one month. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I think that is spot on. TerriersFan (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
Doc,

Sorry for the problems, we were asked to make three significant edits as a class for a pretty big chunk of our grade. We were suppose to contribute something to the article that wasn't previously known. We had to look in odd places for answers and try to find the most scientific research on whatever we found....I tried my best to do this but obviously didn't do a very good job at it. Thankfully i'm now done with the class and hopefully won't ever be trying this again.....this was my first time ever doing anything like this so I didn't really have any idea as to what I was doing! Again sorry for the inconvenience.......

Burkhardt at Central College — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkhardt at Central College (talk • contribs) 23:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries please stay and edit. Can you send me your profs name so that I can follow up with him or her to give them some instruction on how best to make this a positive experience for their students? -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

His name Is Jeffrey Bass and his email is bassj@central.edu....Im pretty sure he has an account on here somewhere...he is my medical anthropology teacher.
 * Many thanks. Will follow up. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit to Lower Spinal Stenosis
Hi James,

I received your message about the edits to the page about LSS and was confused about what the problem with the entry was. References were made to a third-party clinical journal and the entry made no claims or assertions. If you could let me know how it needs to be specifically modified, or if it needs to go in another section, I would appreciate it. I've been doing research on LSS and noticed that this treatment was missing from the article.

Here was the entry for reference:

Interventional Therapy
For patients "who fail conservative therapies and are not surgical candidates due to co-morbid conditions," recent developments in technology, most notably the Mild procedure, have lead to minimally invasive options that do not involve large incisions, the destruction of muscle tissue or prolonged recuperation.

The conclusion of this study revealed that the Mild procedure "appears to be a safe and likely effective option of neurogenic claudication in patients who have failed consecutive therapy and have ligamentum flavum hypertrophy as the primary distinguishing component of stenosis."

Thank you for your feedback!

Comment
never mind, I got it :)

History of Adventure Racing
Jim I noticed that you took out the insert of the 1911 Mt Baker Marathon race in the history section that I had made yesterday. Could you pls share why? Thanks much. Mel --Monkelis (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Independent refs are needed.-- Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 19:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The text appears to have been this:
 * A little publicized race took place in 1911-1913 called the Mount Baker Marathon. The Mount Baker Marathon pitted runners against each other, and required them to run from the base of Mount Baker to its summit at 10,781 feet (3,286 m), and then run back down the mountain to a waiting car or train to take them back to Bellingham, WA. A movie is being made about this race called "The Mountain Runners" and is due out summer 2012. 
 * So you already have an WP:Independent source (the movie) to support the first two sentences, and the third sentence is not the sort of information that requires an independent source to meet the requirements of WP:Verifiability (since "We're making a movie about this" is exactly the sort of simple factual statement that WP:ABOUTSELF accepts).
 * Whether it's WP:DUE is an open question, but producing another independent source isn't going to solve that problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure next issue is that this race had nothing to do with adventure racing. It was a trail running race. This per WP:DUEaswell. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 19:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I don't know much about the subject, I tend to agree with you. At minimum, the sentence about making the movie seems to be undue emphasis on a trivial future event (lots of people are making all sorts of movies all the time).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Reversions
Please do not reverse a good edit to Clostridium difficile. Rather than delete the edit, its citation should be replaced with a newer review article per WP:MEDRS. I am ok with replacing the citation with a newer review article if one is present, but the content I added was a 2011 study. Since the edit is now deleted, but fact is gone and the page is of lesser value. - Robert Badgett 19:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not typically use primary sources. Wikipedia is not here to list the latest advances and cutting edge research and we want knowledge contained here to have stood the test of time. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comment.
I don´t have a reference because my addition to HIV is my experience. I am not sure if I can add personal experience to wikipedia without a reference. Thanks.
 * No Wikipedia does not allow personal experience. Review articles are required.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Doc James, I guess I'm just going to have to keep telling you this until you quit giving this completely wrong advice to new editors: Review articles are not required.  "Reliable sources" are required.  Review articles happen to be one type of reliable source, but they are definitely not the only option, and sometimes other types of sources are clearly preferable.  For example, if your subject matter is describing anatomical features, you ought to be citing an anatomy text rather than some passing comment in a review.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I realize that, it is just that I am only able to write so much some times.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Typing "reliable sources" will only cost you one extra character compared to "review articles". I'm sure you can manage it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Many people do not know what a reliable source is so I typically think it is better to list one... If they are curious they will realize that there are a few types. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 03:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

YOUR ABUSING YOUR EDITING Privileges
I think its wrong for you to delete my links right away - without contacting me first, not even a helpful tip or advice. I have read the ELNO guide lines and I think you are being too presumptuous with your wikipedia powers to delete links without putting in the proper time for evaluation they deserve, and the consideration to notify a new user. Your behavior is not good for wikipedia, nor is it reflective of a physician, I really hope you modify it.Cardioeditor (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Cardioeditor
 * I am well aware of the site in question. Anyway hope you decide to stay and contribute to improving the content here rather than attempting to add external links.-- Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 20:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Cardioeditor, if you want to get other people's opinions on this, you should leave a note at the WP:External links/Noticeboard. We don't require any sort of advance discussion for removing links, so Doc James isn't abusing his editing privileges by doing what he thinks is best.  But if the two of you can't come to an agreement on your own, then you need input from other people, and the noticeboard is the best place to get that outside input.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi - WhatamIdoing - I appreciate your input. AT LEAST YOU PROPOSE a VALID RESOLUTION - the notice board is a good idea. Why didn't "Doc" James propose that to me if he is operating under the true spirit of wikipedia? BUT, Looking at his edit history, he has made an excessive number of deletes to other pages as well, compared to other editors,which should be looked at. His editing history SHOULD BE REVIEWED. WHO is making sure he is not abusing his editing powers? The fact is, All links I contributed had some valuable and helpful information, relating to the page, that the article didn't contain. I am coming from a good place here with my intentions. They were deleted, very quickly, with no valid reason given. I am a first time user to Wikipedia looking to contribute and this is how I am greeted? If adding links weren't a valid contribution, they would not be an option on wikipedia. Especially with medical topics it helps to have a few outside resources to learn more about something- thats NOT spam. Why not have "Doc" James actually write and contribute valid info, rather than look to take away from pages- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardioeditor (talk •contribs) 21:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Who ever said that Wikipedia is a collection of links? The links added are informative and relevant to the page topic, otherwise I would not have added them. Please try reading the linked pages before deleting them.Cardioeditor (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Cardioeditor
 * The first sentence of WP:ELNO is "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." This applies to the links you are adding.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

ARE YOU REALLY AN MD? Don't you want to HELP educate people on medical topics?? I am a new to wikipedia and have just added 3 helpful links-all deleted? All valuable info - I see other links from other hospitals and sources all over wikipedia that are spam. Would you prefer a link to Johns Hopkins, NYU, Mayoclinic or somewhere else? I can ADD THOSE instead if they wont be deleted- I don't care where the info is from, if its good. Please help me understand your compulsion to delete helpful links that have nothing to do with you. SincerelyCardioeditor(talk) 20:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Cardioeditor
 * The WP:ELNO guideline is very clear. We want people who improve Wikipedia's content. We are not a collection of external links. Thanks.-- Doc James (talk·contribs · email) 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cardio,
 * It's not about the particular hospital in question. Some of the links probably weren't ideal.  For example, it's not really helpful to a reader to discover that some hospital in some other country has a program on heart disease, so we tend to omit links that aren't useful for people all around the world.  (Besides, if we add one, then suddenly the marketing departments at a dozen hospitals decide that their program is just as important and needs to be WP:ADVertised on Wikipedia, too.  And the readers really couldn't care less about which hospitals have what programs.)
 * What Doc James means when he keep saying "ELNO #1" is that the link you added about the device for aortic stenosis is the kind of thing that should ideally go right into the article, so that people can read about it without going to another website. I don't know much about cardiology, but it seems like it might be the sort of thing that would fit into the short section Aortic valve stenosis.  (Alternatively, we sometimes make a section called ==Research directions==, especially if it's something that's only being researched.)  The thing is, the more we put right there in the article, the more people learn.  Most of our readers just skip the external links entirely.
 * By the way, I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that readers are far more impressed by proper "scientific" sources, like med school textbooks or journal articles, than they are by press releases and such. We happen to like relatively recent review articles better than original papers like case studies (because there's a case study out there that says just about anything a person might want to say, so it's easy to end up with seriously biased results if you do that).  I assume that these folks have written a peer-reviewed paper about their work.  If you could find the name of such a paper and figure out how to write a sentence or two about the work, I'd be happy to show you how to set up an professional-looking bibliographic citation for it.  There are some semi-automated tricks we use in most of the medicine-related articles that might save you some time.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU WhatamIdoing- I truly appreciate your advice here and will follow it - Thank YOU. I will contact you directly on your page if any questions arise. I am glad to see there are some other Wikipedia editors around here that are operating in the true spirit of Wikipedia and also willing to step in and help out someone who has the best intentions for Wikipedia. Thank you for listening, and also doing what is right. This "doc" james who clearly is making up for some personal shortcomings by acting out in his own self righteous power trip on Wikipedia,instead of providing real guidance and instruction as you have, should be monitored and kept in check until he can prove he is not abusing his privileges and also show us all he is keeping within the true spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks again WhatamIdoing, may good karma be with you. SincerelyCardioeditor (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Cardioeditor

Analysing and fixing student edits
Can you help with this analysis? It is too much for me to tackle on my own (I'm doing group 1 and 2 btw). Sadly, I think the task is beneficial purely from the fixing/reverting aspect, because there are so many bad edits. But of course if we can gather information while we do it then that is useful. It is important we don't just say "I fixed loads of student edits and must have reverted most of them" based just on recollection. I'm disappointed I haven't seen any students making edits outside of the assignment, or interacting on talk pages or user pages and wonder that if any of these students were/are interested in WP then they might just get their own non-student accounts. So the only way to discover if this exercise actually gained WP any editors would be to give these students a questionnaire in a year's time. Colin°Talk 21:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure will do. Thanks again for taking this on. Doc James (talk· contribs · email) 22:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yerba mate
Thanks for your changes at the article but this makes no sense, especially when I read the comment you left: "Please fill out said ref before returning it". Where are there rules that sections cannot be added with bare refs? In fact, there's a tag to indicate that they should be filled-out. I'll assume good faith on your part, but don't do something like this again. In fact, you could have been bold and added the full information yourself instead. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We should be using review article or major textbooks not primary research papers. Did not see the further details of that paper on the elsever page. Though it was just their home page. Anyway will work on improving things.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouchie, Doc - need me to stitch your buttock for you? => Complimentary Rx: Hydrocodone/APAP 10/325, 1-2 (maybe 3) p.o. p.r.n., disp: 10. LMAO!
 * Cliff (a/k/a &#34;Uploadvirus&#34;) (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cliff this place can get a little rough sometimes...-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Campus ambassadors
Hey, I have seen you everywhere around Wikipedia. I saw on Wikiproject Medicine that you raised the issue of what to do with class projects. I am a Wikipedia campus ambassador and I also am interested in this problem. On one hand, new editors need to be recruited and university classes seem like an ideal way to do this because they can get supervision and support from teachers. On the other hand, Wikipedia does not currently have infrastructure to deal with all the problems like copyright violations, no citations, and other newbie problems. The problem which I experienced was having a class do a lot of articles, then they all wanted feedback before the end of the term. The natural flow of Wikipedia is not going to get feedback for everyone, and I think there are good arguments for giving this class of users special attention so that there is a greater chance of editor retention.

You have been involved in the talk - is there a better overview or discussion than what is on Wikiproject Medicine? Can I call you and make a phone appointment just to hear you talk about what is happening and what you want to see happen? I really appreciate your contributions and if you have ideas or need support then I would like to help you. Thanks for your attention.

Another problem I have sort of related to this is that I work with a lot of medical research institutes who want to raise awareness of their fields. Wikipedia has so much concern about conflict of interest, and I want to get your ideas about making proposals that could make Wikipedia safe while allowing Wikipedia to receive work hours from PR people who want to do educational outreach by contributing to articles on fundamental health and science concepts. Can we talk by phone and personal email? I see your email on your userpage but I wanted to reach out here first.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   20:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly.-- Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 02:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

BPD
Could you please explain on Talk:Borderline personality disorder what you thought was a copyright violation in Orca's edits? Was it the whole set of changes, or just part of them? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I added my concerns seconds after your comments :-) -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

page2anesthesiology
Many medical journals have started producing "blogs" to better explain their content to the average reader. Page2Anesthesiology is published by the journal, Anesthesiology and editors from the journal provide material. Most "blogs" from page2anesthesiology are summaries of articles that have been published in the journal. Each of the "blogs" that is a summary of an article has a link in that blog to the original article. All posts in Wikipedia that I have written where page2Anesthesiology is included have first included a pmid link to the particular article. The link to page2Anesthesiology is provided for the wikipedia reader to see an expanded easier to understand discussion of that article.

Other medical journals that have "blogs" that should be allowed include the NEJM blog, now@NEJM, and the JAMA blog, news@JAMA. How do we move forward?

L509alumni (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

concerning your last response
I wouldn't mind simply leaving out references to blog. But, someone (hu12) has gone in and removed ALL of my posts. I would mind taking out the blog references but it's a lot of work to go back and recreate the posts. I also found the action heavy handed.L509alumni (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

your last note
In your last note, you commented: "We very strongly prefer review articles as they give a better sense of the opinion of a community of academics. " The blogs with medical journals are a community of academics commenting on articles published in a journal. The specific article, though, is not a review article.

At least, Wikipedia should be fair. Right now I have the flu. Just now, I looked up flu, i.e., influenza in Wikipedia. Most of the articles cited are not review articles. And some of the references, e.g., #132, are no better than page2Anesthesiology. Rules should be equally applied. L509alumni (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes agree. It would be great if all articles where improved in line with policy. I have removed the poor ref in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

doc2doc
Why is a discussion about a blog, doc2doc, allowed on wikipedia, though any mention of the same for the journal, Anesthesiology, is considered spam. Not fair!L509alumni (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between an article on a blog and using it as a reference. There is also an article on the journal anesthesia here Anaesthesia_(journal) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

knol article on hernia
hi

i added the link to the knol, that you reverted. Why knol is not an appropriate external link?

this particular knol is of much better quality than the wikipedia article, and it is written by a world-specialist of hernias. You should read it. I did not find it easily, it does not have a good pagerank. but I think it deserves more visibility than it has. Before deleting the link, read the whole article and make your own opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokotillon (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Knol is being shut down and it is not peer reviewed. Cheers Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

journal name incorrect
The name of the journal is Anesthesiology, not Anaesthesia. I know this is a link to what wikipedia considers spam, but according to this: (http://page2anesthesiology.org/2011/we’re-number-1-among-anesthesiology-journals/), Anesthesiology has the highest impact factor among anesthesiology journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L509alumni (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create an article about this journal. However there is not consensus to use blogs as references. Cheers. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

De novo presentations of cardiovascular disease in HIV positive patients
Dear Doc James,

Please explain your reasoning for removal of my section on the CVD main page...there was a brief description of Chlamydophila pneumoniae infection and increased risk for CAD..furthermore, HIV infection and CVD is an emerging topic within the field of clinical medicine and epidemiology. As I am a student at the Yale School of Public Health (beginning in the MPH program), would greatly appreciate your insight.

Much thanks,

ACRoginiel — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACRoginiel (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure will write comments on your talk page. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

knol hernia
yes, but two other external links are not peer-reviewed too. And their quality is much lower than this knol. Moreover, the other links give outdated information to patients, which can put their health at risk: for example, http://paingroin.com/2009/05/inguinal-hernia/ advises for surgery, which is no longer the advised option (see EHS guidelines 2009), because of the significant risk of inguinodynia.

Myself, I almost chose surgery, based on this poor information. I canceled my operation few days before. It could have been the greatest mistake of my life.

you should not be dogmatic about knol content, did you read the article? it will be one of the few good knols that we will miss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokotillon (talk • contribs) 10:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin E article
Hi James,

I saw you reverted some edits I made to the vitamin E article. I think that the article is very poor quality and I am trying to improve it by adding more general information that is understandable for the average reader because there is some technical information in there and add some review papers as references. My edits were just reversed by you, as far as I can see only to place "Health Effects" at the top of the paper. I would have preferred for you to leave my edits in place and just add the "Health Effects" section to the top. I don't want to get into a situation where we are just reverting each others' edits, so would it be possible for you to go back, undo your edit, and then re-edit the article to place "Health Effects" at the top, and we could discuss the article structure on the discussion page? I can also do the editing if it is difficult for you.

Thanks, Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliakbird (talk • contribs) 14:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a guideline here WP:MEDMOS the outlines the preferred ordering of section for articles on meds/vitamins. Thus moved back up again. And this statement " Observational studies support a possible role of vitamin E intake and circulating levels of vitamin E with protection from cardiovascular disease. " is using old research to contradict newer better done studies/reviews. Per WP:MEDRS we use studies in the last 3-5 years preferably. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Refs
I'm afraid that I don't quite understand what it is you are asking me to do. - Nunh-huh 16:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was considerably less cryptic! - Nunh-huh 17:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources are certainly sufficient. However, if you want secondary sources, I'll allow you to handle it from here on. - Nunh-huh 17:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

inguinal hernia article
i agree, but given the extremely poor quality of this article, which put people's lives at risk (like following the even poorer advice of their surgeon), i think you should interpret the rules with flexibility in this case. remember that these rules were made to enhance the flow of quality information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokotillon (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hepatitis
I am reverting your last edit. There are >40 reviews now listed among the causes of hepatitis. These are consistent with the Style guidance on medical articles. If you wish to delete material that lacks references might I suggest you start with Hepatitis A,B,CD and E along with alcohol as these lack any cited references let alone reviewsDrMicro (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there are some reviews. The bigger issue is the one of long lists. Will bring this discussion to WP:MED. Cheers -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a very reasonable question. There are LOTS of causes of hepatitis. I suspect the same problem will occur with other medical problems for example diarrhoea. Listing them in the format used here does have the advantages of following the format of most medical text books. Placing them into a paragraph is not a good idea: such a long list rapidly becomes virtually unreadable. One suggestion might be to move them to a separate page. Any other workable suggestions would be very welcome and not just for this page.DrMicro (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes good point. Here is an example of a page I worked on Shortness of breath where I tried to put the differential diagnosis of each main cause into context. The list was than moved to Differential diagnosis of shortness of breath. Might have been better under the title of List of causes of shortness of breath. IMO we should do the same here. Maybe discuss groups of causes together (like infectious, medication, etc like is done on the page on anaphylaxis) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. Should we put this up for discussion first before moving the material? Maybe someone else can make a better suggestion. As you know there are a LOT of non infectious causes also known and most of these are not listed there. Also the list of drugs known cause hepatitis is already ridiculously long (only a few are listed here) and is not likely to grow any shorter. Some editor may wish to add to this list also. A list page would have the advantage of just being a list and can be added to without problems. But then again maybe there is a better way? DrMicro (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Been thinking again about this. A list page would have the advantage of being able to separate and hence navigate between the different classes of causes. This isn't terribly easy at the minute on the Hepatitis page. My own feeling is that additional separations between (say) the parasitic causes into trematodes and nematodes might be useful.
 * The more I think about it the more I like it. This was something I was thinking of before you suggested it. But again I would not mind a second (or third opinion) before doing any major surgery on this page.DrMicro (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note on the Differential diagnosis of shortness of breath. IMHO this page could use a reorganisation. The subsections causes are listed without any apparent logic.DrMicro (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes please feel free. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A note on that last page. Infection of the lung is not or is extremely rarely contagious An example of contagion would be transmission with a contaminated bronchoscope. Pneumonia (lung infection) is almost always infectious.DrMicro (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)