User talk:Doc James/Archive 38

Talkback
No unique  names  04:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried to incorporate some of the "see also" links into the main body of text in accordance with what you pointed out. Also, Merry Christmas!  -- No  unique  names  05:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing Lymphoma
It was really appreciable that you have participated in editing Lymphoma. Currently the article is in a better shape. I have made a few further edits and it seems that a lot more cleanup is required. I edit Wikipedia less frequently compared to you, so I would be glad if you could leave me some suggestions.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 09:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to edit Homing (hematopoietic)
Shortly back, I have created an article called Homing (hematopoietic). I would be glad if you participate in editing the article.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 10:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carpal tunnel syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B6 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Behçet's disease
An IP just changed the ICD-9 code for Behçet's disease with this edit summary; ''Changed outdated ICD-9 code. No research exists to indicate Behcet's is caused by any known infection and currently remains medically unclassified. These codes were written decades ago in the US.. ~JB The previous version's code is for Behçet's disease, but the version's code just states Autoimmune disease, not elsewhere classified'' This seems odd. Would you please verify this? edit diff Much appreciated. Jim1138 (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my pea-brain was on the verge of exploding... Jim1138 (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

 * Thanks the same to you. Sad to see you stepping down from arbcom but hope to see you back to editing more :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ping
Talk:Fecal incontinence/GA1. I don't think lesion knew that "pinging" was slang for contact me on my talk page. They replied there that they were ready. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah thank Brian. Will take a look tonight. Also feel free to provide additional comments. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Got your message.
Hello. Just a note to let you know that I received your message and will make sure that I pay attention to that. Thank you for pointing that out to me; I'm still learning my way around here.(GlassLadyBug (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Thanks, drop me a note if you have any questions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of 12/28/12 revision
Why was the revision on 12/28/12 by Fereydoon.Roohi@Downstate.edu deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFRoo (talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Need more info. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Jim Heilman
Saw this user pop up on my watchlist on the Asthma page, not sure what to make of it, but wanted to make sure you knew about it. Yobol (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I bet it's James' guardian grammar angel. He is truly blessed. Biosthmors (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks it is family helping out with my grammar :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Banner for WikiProject Medicine Page.
WikiProject Medicine banner is added to Project Page, feel free to update it or remove it. Do we have banners for Wiki Med? AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your reversion
Hi, You reverted my changes to colorectal cancer saying 'references required'. Are you asking for references in this article (maybe because you doubted my additions were true) or because they weren't easy to find in the linked articles ? Also, I'd be grateful, if you revert my changes, if you'd mention it on my talk page please so I can deal with it while it's fresh in my mind. - Rod57 (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When one adds content the expectation is that one will add a reference to a high quality source aswell per WP:V and WP:MEDRS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doc
I just wanted to say that I hope that you had a nice Christmas and that you have a Happy New Year. :-)-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks the same to you. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My edits...
Yes I thought when I was writing the references for the heart disease pages, that I should have referenced the actual studies they reference with their proof directly, rather than the secondary source talking about the studies.

Would it be worth going back and creating direct links to the studies related to the cause of heart disease, that this article referenced, at some later time? (Are fairly cut and dry studies acceptable references?)

Just hit me on a whim, to try and correct some of our long held seeming misperceptions about the topic having discovered this research (such as that heart disease is caused by excessive LDL, when its more accurately caused by high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome etc and a lack of certain anti-oxidants ie oxLDL, or so it now appears). The risk factors still apply, but they are no longer viable as the actual cause (apart from perhaps high blood pressure, which is part of the cause)

Admitedly more research needs to be done now that we have a new angle to look at this phenomena from, to give it more weight (especially with long held perceptions)

(The nicotine thing is something I became aware of recently, that nicotine on its own, say via an e-cig, is not anywhere near as addictive as smoking - its the mao inhibition that makes smoking tobacco work like it does - another misperception, and thankfully someone had already referenced that one with a study)

I appreciate you dropping me a note :)

Thanks, Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.215.200 (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We typically do not use the actual studies themselves but high quality sources like review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Warnings
Given my apology to Drmies and the conversation you chose to post at the end of, what productive perspective do you feel you're adding? Ironholds (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A long time user has just left the project (User:SandyGeorgia) partly over this issue. From my reading of the policy all editor deserve a warning before being blocked except for a very few narrow situations (such as legal threats and death threats). She did not just thrown in the towel due to this but a few other recent blogs of long term contributors without due process. Maybe this is not the right venue but definitely something we need to clarify as a group.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again; given my apology to Drmies, the conversation you chose to post at the end of and my most recent discussion on this front, what do you feel your contribution adds? I have no objection to people telling me I did it wrong, but I have an objection to people telling me "you did it wrong" after I have visibly and noticeably accepted that and altered my workflow. If you think admins as a group hang out on my talkpage you are mistaken ;p. Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What I was sort of hoping for was 1) yes the policy is that people are to be warned first and unfortunately it is not always followed, we need to see what we can do to improve this or 2) no that is not the policy and people may be banned without a warning, he is where ones discusses if we should change this policy. Anyway I will investigate. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc, I popped by to tell you that I closed an RfC you were (somewhat) involved in on Talk:Koro (medicine) and saw this. I appreciate your comment. I appreciated Ironholds's words too, but unfortunately I have come to understand how some other editors with a block log feel. I can't judge if Ironholds is right in suggesting that your words don't add anything--I haven't been browsing around to be able to judge that. Anyway, here we are again, in a new year, and that's about all I can say. Happy new year to both of you. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this, Doc ... I was encouraged that at least Ironholds issued what looked like a genuine apology, while the other admin in the other block did not, and likely will not. So at this juncture, I'm inclined towards feeling better about Ironholds than the other, but yes ... efforts to help clarify blocking policy so that trigger-happy admins don't go around making unhelpful blocks would be a good thing. I don't have the time or inclination to take on that issue while the disruption at FAC continues ... I'd like to be able to just get back to reviewing articles at FAC and FAR, since the standards have dropped, and work on medical articles without Education Program interference. I appreciate your efforts to help clarify blocking policy, and I'm sorry I don't have the energy to join in that effort right now. I hope Drmies and all of the unfairly blocked will be able to put it behind them and welcome in a New Year. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Doc9871 & Chemgirl
Hi, not sure what to think of - you probably know a lot more than me. Richiez (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really familiar with either one of them as I only really work at WP:MED. What appears to be the issue? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * have no background either. Chemgirl131 somewhere stated to be the new reincarnation of El3ctr0nika and was removing old comments by that user from all talk pages for "privacy reasons". Now Doc9871 mass-reverted those changes. Iirc El3ctr0nika crossed our ways many times updating chemboxes and such, thats how I stumbled upon it. If Chemgirl131' claim is true than the user should have his right to vanish not sabotaged by others. Doc9871 reverted content on 3rd party talkpages that did not touch him in any way afaic. Richiez (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the involved 3rd party talkpages was my own and I agree with user Richiez. Doc9871's reverts are questionable. Boghog (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Has this concern been brought to the attention of the user in question? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a WP:TALK violation for her to go around not only removing her comments from talk pages (article talk pages after users have already replied and user talk pages without their permission), and even archived talk pages (which is a huge violation), but tampering with others' comments and changing their words. Not acceptable in the least. WP:VANISH does not give her that right. If anyone were to be sanctioned in this case, it would not be Doc9871. 72.216.4.94 (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am having trouble getting my head around this. If you want to vanquish why would you bring attention to your previous posts by having them removed? Seems like this would just cause the Streisand effect. If someone came to my talk page and tried to remove comments by another editor I would have concerns as it sort of puts the discussion out of kilter. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And other editors have also reverted her because she was removing and/or changing a massive amount of text on their talk pages, and even in their archives. 72.216.4.94 (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That was my initial thought as well, but in thinking more about this I changed my mind. Since old versions of Wikipedia pages are not normally indexed by search engines, it would make it much more difficult to find someone if the pages were expunged. Boghog (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But they are also removing stuff from the talk pages of articles per and . It is strange and makes me concerned. If I came across this I would likely do the same as Doc9871.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that one normally should not change other's comments, but very rarely, there are legitimate reasons to so (personal attacks, privacy, outing, etc.). This may be one of them. Boghog (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But one should never do it themselves. One can go through the proper processes via OTRS and get an admin to do it after providing proper justification. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree to that. Boghog (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The only way that it would be okay is if there were some Wikipedia community consensus for this, or maybe if it was by permission of WP:ArbCom. There may also be the WP:Sysop example that Boghog mentioned on my talk page. But what is evident is that she would need to get the official okay for something like this, if okay'ed at all. 72.216.4.94 (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great I am glad we all agree. There is no way to verify that this chemgirl editor is the same as the other editor. Thus how do we even know if the other comments are hers. I will post a note on her page.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even more odd for a person to do this if it's not the person in question who has done it. But I guess we are supposed to suspect that a person who doesn't like her could have done this? Or just a bored vandal? If verification from the El3ctr0nika account is needed, it is better to email that account (if the email option is still avaliable on that account). 72.216.4.94 (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me of this, 72.216.4.94! I've never seen someone do this in quite this way in my nearly 5 years here, and I thought it highly unusual. Like 72. said, going deep into archives was a major red flag for me. make it look like Beetstra was talking to themselves. And the edit summary of "Attempting to mostly vanish..." seems to not be what WP:VANISH is about at all. All the contributions for Rocknroll714 and El3ctr0nika are hidden save, where no mention of them being Chemgirl131 is made. Why? It is clear that Chemgirl and Rocknroll714 were editing at the same time, and this appears odd. I'm not sure what the full story on this is, but I know that this was not the proper way to "vanish", and removing comments from archives is not a thing that is usually permitted.  Doc   talk  11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - . This is quite ridiculous and not necessary. I hope this is not something that is allowed under VANISH. Removing these archive posts, especially in article archives, should not be tolerated. Doc   talk  19:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * May be bring it to ANI. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it won't come to that. But as I pointed out on Chemgirl's talk page, they are not actually "vanished" when they add extensive content to HPV and other articles in between butchering up archives. This is very strange. Doc   talk  20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reported this at WP:ANI. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI - re your suggestion
As someone who has been blocked in the not to distant past I wanted to tell you that I do not know how to respond to your proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention

Here is a reference to how I was blocked: User_talk:Ottawahitech

In your opinion was I notified in advance of the block or not? - (I was in shock when it happened, so maybe I am naive?) Ottawahitech (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So not commenting on the justification of the request, it was asked that you change your user name on Feb 1st, when you had not on Feb 3rd you where blocked. So there was sort of a warning. If you would have protested this to ANI on Feb 1st you might have been able to avoid the block as you would have gotten community consensus against it. There first interaction with you was not a block, which for some editors unfortunately is not the case. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Warning before blocking
Shouldn't you have confined your proposal to established or long term content editors? It is not going to succeed in its current form. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the comments I do not think it will succeed in any form. We have a group who thinks all editors should be treated the same no matter how long the have been here. And we have a group who does not want any restrictions placed on their ability to use their judgement to determine who should be blocked.


 * I would be happy if this was just applied to long term editors (which would need to be defined). Feel free to revise and retry. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification
Regarding your image upload of psoriasis, do you recall what part of the body the image recorded? (i'm guessing it's the knee..), Thank-You--Anuhek (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I am not. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Medical references
Greetings - You left a message on my talk page, and I'm hoping you can enlighten me. It's a large reference, and I can feel that you're concerned about something in particular. Can you enlighten me? Perhaps I can help or fix something. Santamoly (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

70% figure
Do you have access to the full article "Efficacy of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines"? I just read the entire article and could not find a single justification for the 70% figure. Perhaps there is a justification somewhere, I could not find it on Google Scholar. They should not have been allowed to state such a figure in the abstract without repeating it in the introduction and giving a proper reference to studies which justify it. It is a bad reference, and is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.227.218 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the abstract is "Human papillomavirus (HPV) types cause approximately 70% of cervical cancer worldwide. " Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't have access to the article, I can email to you. Please indicate how they arrived at the 70% figure. If you can't based on that article, it's a bad reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.227.218 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I have access to the full article. Just have not read the whole thing yet. Feel free to bring this discussion to WT:MED for further input. Even if it is in just the abstract it is still a reliable published source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am writing a manuscript and would like to reference the 70% number. Referencing "Efficacy of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines" will not be accepted by the journal editors where I am submitting. I thought that the authors of this paper would reference the study that showed that 70% was the right number. They don't. I'm not disputing the number, by the way, I'm simply saying that we need a link to the original study (which is probably much more nuanced than just ~70%).132.216.227.218 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) BTW, the journal in which this article is published is not a high quality journal (impact Factor: 1.646, barely high than Medical Hypotheses).132.216.227.218 (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes we are a little different here at Wikipedia as we are a tertiary rather than a secondary source. We per WP:MEDRS prefer secondary sources as references over primary sources as secondary sources typicality give better due weight to the literature and usually provide a better overview. The ref inside the paper says 99.7%. Anyway if you figure it out please post on the talk page of cervical cancer. I'm off to work. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. 132.216.227.218 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I agree sometimes reliable sources make mistakes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Martlau (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Refs on Polio
Per WP:MEDRS secondary sources from the last 5 years are needed. Cheers Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand you want recent researchs on current medical topics, but you shouldn't reject old references when it's about comparing history and now and there is clearly no point in asking for recent sources when it's about history on which there is no recent research.
 * (sorry for not having an loggin, but mine is already used on the english wikipedia (it even might be one I created years ago and lost the password before all wiki IDs were centralized). - 213.189.160.119 (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm running into the same concerns since my interest is the origins of many modern procedures. After all, some medical sources refer to Sir William Osler, Louis Pasteur, or even Hippocrates!  I'm trying to make an effort to put such sources into a "historical" context in the article, thereby complying with WP:MEDRS, and hoping that won't cause too much adverse excitement. Santamoly (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

An appreciation of your contributions

 * Thks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment
Debilitating fatigue can have a duration of two to three months, particularly in adults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJFBrooks (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Regional standards of care
Hi Doc James. I recently left a new message regarding the formatting of regional variation in standards of care articles, that can be found at WT:MED. Thanks for your feedback. Best. GT67 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Well Referenced Content Regarding Smoking
Of course the organizations who provide content provide well referenced content.

And of course, in Germany The Big Lie was also well referenced, but where are we when life expectancy in America, without any exposure to tobacco, is 78.9 years and the 22.1% risk of lung cancer among male smokers' is referenced' to the age of 85? And that the comparative to non-smoking European males does not indicate whether they are still alive, only that they did not die from lung cancer. Why are we crossing the pond for the comparative? Because American Life Expectancy is only 78.9 years?

The well referenced data, does it take into account the disproportionate percentage among smokers of high stressed individuals?

There is a hell of a lot of money to be had for contradicting The People now, ain't there?

Slearwig (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stress is not a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Please support you edits with high quality sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Care to assist on an issue?
Perhaps you aren't the right editor because this is an issue with Academia as it relates to medicine (and a different form of medicine than you are probably experienced with), but you were the most qualified person I could think of. Can you take a look at User talk:Ryan Vesey and offer some advice if you have any? Thanks, Ryan Vesey 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like you have done well to fix the issues. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions
I'm not certain to what extent you're proficient in endocrinology, but would you mind stopping by this discussion? I'm substantially convinced that we should not be depicting such a poorly understood physiological process in black and white terms, especially not in this context and in spite of contradictory data. —  C M B J  08:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your message
Siilinsilmä (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)You contacted me months ago anout my "contribution" to Wikipedia article on Tularemia. I am sorry I did not answer earlier, but I have been too busy to even notice it. I am not too familiar with all the tricks of Wikipedia as simple as they may be, and for some reason I made a real mess on this one. It was either leaving my lines without notes or erasing the all the notes from the whole text.

My original notes were from national statistics of Sweden and Finland. Tularemia is rather well known in mid to northern Finland, alhough we call it Jänisrutto (Hare-plague), obviously, it kills a lot of hares. I have known its existense as long as I remember and my sister got it just days before I wrote my entry.

Yours, Siilinsilmä i.e. Anne Aurasmaa Ph.D.

Siilinsilmä (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes a high quality reference was needed if I remember correctly. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

new category
since cs has been cleared by fda for external use, its no longer belongs to alternative medicine. Though the internal use by mouth continues to belongs to alternative medicine. Yet, all other forms of silver are used by doctors, like for example for burns. So, could you please add a suitable category? Ryanspir (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc, FYI this 1999 FDA Final Rule regarding colloidal silver drug products states, "SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final rule establishing that all over-the-counter (OTC) drug products containing colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts for internal or external use are not generally recognized as safe and effective and are misbranded.  FDA is issuing this final rule because many OTC drug products containing colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts are being marketed for numerous serious disease conditions and FDA is not aware of any substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of OTC colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts for these disease conditions."  This NIH page, last updated February 2012, does not indicate that the FDA has made any updates to this Final Ruling since then, or "cleared" colloidal silver for any use.   17:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the request is? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Emphysema article - research edits
Where would you recommend I place research done on blood oxygenation without respiration? An an emphysema patient, it seems to apply to progress toward a cure (or workaround in this case). I can't imagine where else on Wikipedia I would look this up, if I were searching for info on progress made by the research community. 174.239.32.140 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Until it is supported by proper secondary sources it probably does not belong anywhere. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Where can I look up information on what a "proper secondary source" is? 71.205.175.33 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If one uses pubmed and restricts the search to review articles from the last 10 years that should do the trick. TRIPdatabase is another great resource. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure to meet you
Hi James,

Pleasure to meet you today! Thanks for making it out to UCSF!

Are these talk pages conversations public?

HeatherLogghe (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, James! I’m very glad to have met a Wikipedian who leaves in an English-speaking country and is a physician by profession. Many thanks for. And Theodore Roosevelt’s words you find inspiring are very good, in my estimation. --SU ltd. (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WIkipedia copyright violation?
Hi Doc, I am wondering if you can give me your thoughts - in the U.K an extremely high profile case involving a major celebrity figure who turned out to be a psychopathic narcissistic prolific sexual abuser has just been reported on by the government. You may be wondering what the problem is. The problem is this multimillion pound enquiry and final report contains large quantities of plagiarised text from wikipedia!!! Or at least that is what one person is raising on the this talk page, Talk:Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal. I am wondering whether you could have a look and see if this is indeed the case as I am not good when it comes to interpretations of legal policies of wikipedia and I know that you have knowledge in this area.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  16:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure will take a look. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it appears to be copyright infringement. I guess we could report Scotland Yard to themselves :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, yeah. Do you think that it is worth reporting or notifying someone?-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  01:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe send a note to the publisher informing them of your concern. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Help lines
Hi, DocJames. In the wake of Wikipedian Aaron Swartz's suicide on Friday -- featured in remembering Aaron Swartz -- I've been wondering what we can do to help prevent similar tragedies in the future, in our community and in the world at large.

Noting that Google, Yahoo, and Ask have special links to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline when they get queries for "suicide", I thought it would make sense to add a simple but prominent link to suicide.

There are archives of conversations on the subject on Talk:Suicide, and specifically I've seen you say that "we don't link to hotlines". I wasn't able to find a clear summary of why that is, though. It feels like suicide might be a special case, and since we have list of suicide crisis lines it could even be a wiki link. --ESP (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not link to suicide hotlines as I have been unable to find any decent evidence to support there use. Am more than happy to look at evidence other present. We state in the prevention section "Although crisis hotlines are common there is little evidence to support or refute their effectiveness" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)