User talk:Doc James/Archive 41

Med English classes in Mexico
Hi!

I just got students started on Wikipedia this week, giving them the initial tour and exploring Wikiproject:Medicine. I will first have them explore Commons and improve descriptions Next they willbring in photos to upload and hopefully put into articles next week.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great can you email me a short description of what they will be doing or paste it below. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Psychoactive substance use
Under Template talk:Psychoactive substance use Should Alcohol Diseases be under Substance-induced disorder (SID) or substance-use disorder (SUD)? I have added them under SID but if they belong to SUD, please place them there instead of removing them. This is IMPORTANT because then we won't have any continuing problem creation of articles such as "Long-term effects of alcohol", "Short-term effects of alcohol", "Short and long-term effects of alcohol".

Thank you.David Hedlund 02:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bronchitis Articles
Hey Doc, so, regarding the bronchitis articles, is it okay to use those references I added to the bronchitis articles to expand the acute and chronic bronchitis main articles? I'm not sure exactly how we are reorganizing those three articles now. If you can share your thoughts with me on how you think we should approach this, that would be great. Thanks. Sincerely, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which ones exactly? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it matter which references? Are some of them not suitable references for the main articles? I didn't have specific ones in mind yet. I just wanted to be clear on what's happening with the articles since the bronchitis article has changed so much and the acute and chronic bronchitis articles aren't as well-sourced.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as the sources are high quality per WP:MEDRS I am not that fussy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. =) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Phthisis & Consumption Tuberculosis
1) It is my understanding that the lede summarises the contents of the article. Can you please explain to me why mentioning Phthisis & Consumption in the lede is not a good idea? 2) Why did you remove the "See also" section which mentions Miliary tuberculosis? I'm looking forward to reading your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1)We already state in the second paragraph "the latter giving rise to the formerly prevalent term "consumption"" and we mention the Greek term phthisis in the history section. Giving greater prominence IMO is undue weight.


 * 2)You will notice that miliary tb is linked in this section Thus it does not need to go in a see also section. See also sections are not recommended per WP:MEDMOS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 2) No, I had not noticed. Yes, I now see that it is. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It seems I did not make the intent of my question clear enough. Yes, what you say is accurate. But it does not address my intent. Hence, I will attempt to be clearer in communicating my intent.
 * It is my understanding that the lede summarises the contents of the article. Although not currently used widely, the terms "consumption" and "phthisis" were once widely used. Although I am familiar with the use of the term "consumption", when I was reading William Townsend (mayor) I had not previously heard of the term "phthisis". When I searched for the term, I found a disambiguation page which I cleaned up, and then linked the article to it. I then looked at the Tuberculosis page and found nothing about either consumption or phthisis in the opening paragraph. Thinking this rather strange, I considered the various options (e.g. "hat notes", redirection, etc.) and decided that editing the opening paragraph was the least bad of the alternatives. As I have acknowledged, "Yes, what you say is accurate". However, it is not very helpful to a reader coming to the article wondering what, if anything, phthisis &/or consumption have to do with tuberculosis.
 * Hence: Can you please explain to me why mentioning phthisis & consumption in the lede is not a good idea?
 * I'm afraid that I don't understand how adding "which has also been referred to as Phthisis and Consumption" is giving those terms undue weight, but I'm open to explanation. I would prefer a reason rather than a statement of opinion.
 * Thank you for your time. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Consumption is mentioned in the second paragraph. I do not think it needs to be mentioned twice in the lead. Phthsis is in the history section. People can search the article for these terms. Not everything can go in the lead. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed that you have completely ignored my request and questions, and simply repeated yourself without adding any new information. Oh well, "c'est la vie" I guess. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure I disagree with mentioning consumption twice and the lead and mentioning phthisis at all. IMO it is undue weight. Feel free to ask for a further opinion at WT:MED if you do not like mine. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Premastication
I agree in many ways, but for a topic still under scientific and socialogical research, I think the refs and opinions in the review paper warrant inclusion to show the ongoing discussion and differing opinions on the subject. Jeanpetr (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly significant statement and thus would like to see a good reference. I will look into it further. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to see the varying opinions and discussions on premastication, all you have to do is look at Aggett (2010) and Van Esterik et al. (2010). Then again, they may not be up to par to your standards of "good medical sources". As I have stated, the topic is still under scientific and socialogical research. Jeanpetr (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you provide PMIDs they are easier for me to find. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the links in the articles would have brought you the citated articles. In anycase the PMIDs are 20055926 and 20055927 Jeanpetr (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes neither one of those is listed as review articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and they are by experts in the field who review the literature through cited commentaries. Jeanpetr (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

School project from Mexico
Hi :) my name is Mercedes I''m from Mexico. I'm a medstudent and we are working on this project about medicine and wikipedia :) Our teacher asked us to start exploring and I'm just learning about talk page and leaving messages, you'll be getting news about our project :) :) Mechealarconr (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated
Hi Doc. There is a revised lead proposal here based on your recommendations and Puhlaa. Please let me know if there are any more concerns wrt the revised proposal. Cheers. DVMt (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Will need a few more days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A final draft of 'effectiveness and safery of manual and manipulative therapy' is available here for your viewing.  It's concise and short with the amendments you and Puhlaa proposed.  If you're no longer interested just let me know and I'll stop asking for comment.  Cheers,  DVMt (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I inserted the revised draft based on your and Puhlaa's suggestions. [. I you disagree, agree or have any comments let know us chirotalk.  We got off on the wrong foot, I believe, and i'm just sending an olive branch to have better, more open communication.  Cheers, [[User:DVMt|DVMt]] (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hey, I am the first author of the article. Do I still need a copy rite for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.68.217 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah great thanks. That is a good question. Let me ask. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And discussion is here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Reaction mechanisms
Dear jmh649,

I have uploaded only those mechanisms which are very hard to find for researchers. They were from my published research articles. If you could suggest any better way how do we include them, please suggest. These will help the users too much. Thank you.

Regards,

Bankim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankim07 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure I have asked for further input. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Annona and cancer
OK, you advised me to search the sources in tripdatabase. Can I use sources found there in Alternative cancer treatments article? Moreover note, that one sentence is not medical but it's encyclopedic. It purely states that the plant is used traditionally in Nigeria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mucidl (talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What source do you want to support with what text in what article? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would revert this revision, because it was found by tripdatabase and I will try to find another section for the second sentence (something like "treatment in various geographic regions") about the treatment in Nigeria. Is it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mucidl (talk • contribs) 10:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The first is a primary research paper. The second does not support use as a cancer treatment. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Reflist format
Hey Anthony I find that is does not format well on my monitor without either 2 or 30em. As we have many thousands of articles using this should we look at ways to fix the mobile site so they view better? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably. Feel free to revert me. I changed it to on Cancer and Android (operating system) definitely in the spirit of WP:BRD, to elicit feedback. I've started a discussion at WP:VPT to see if someone can fix the template for tablets (or the mobile site, I guess). (Just selfishly trying to make editing on this thing slightly less nightmarish.) By the way, it was User:Casliber I had in mind for Australian outreach, if it interests him - it may not. He's already contributed a great deal to the movement. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  02:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

On suicide
Wondering what you thoughts are on suicide Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Anthony. If you have trouble getting access to sources drop me a note. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey. I just noticed you're editing it right now too - I hope I haven't been causing edit-conflicts. I'm reading through and making obvious changes as I go. Anything I need sources for I'll list when I get to the end. I have to go out now, so I'll leave you in peace and get back to it in a few hours. I wish we could involve real experts. What about a letter to one of the suicide journals asking for input? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Feel free to reply here: you're on my watchlist.


 * I'm sorry to interfere, but in regard to the history section of that article, the emphasis should be placed on the transformation during the 18th century of the view that suicide was a sinful act to a more lenient one where it was regarded as evidence of insanity (evidence drawn mostly from coroner findings; significant in that such a finding disbarred property confiscation or bodily mutilation). That it stayed on the legal statutes as a criminal offence is a somewhat different matter (penalties only finally removed in England in 1961) and did not represent practice or public opinion. The following is a pretty good review article for the history of suicide: An article on suicide should probably also reference Durkheim at some point . Good luck to both of you with the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks excellent point. Will look soon. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You got the articles? FiachraByrne (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the vote of confidence... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

question
Thanks for the comment. Please be more specific - which article are you referencing. Thank you!
 * This edit  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Templates
Usually we keep the templates at the bottom collapsed. Wondering why you are expanding a bunch? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the are ICD diagnoses in the template. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And? Is there consensus to expand them? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are right. Please try to be more polite. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Polite about what? It is a simple question "is there consensus to expand all these templates"? If not would be a good idea to get consensus before you continue to make this change widely. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

References Talkback
Hello there Jmh649, as you may know, wikipedia requires verifiable sources to sustain facts that are incorporated into the article. I see that you remove a lot of community effort by claims of high quality references. However the actual references you removed (along content), some of them are high quality references, from American Gastroenterological Association, also the content removal you performed is categorized as vandalism. If you see some content that is referenced, but it is redundant or its source is dubious, please use the article's talk page to discuss it, if the talk page is not monitored use the Wikiproject's related talk page. Wikipedia is based on consensus above all, and for instance I do not consent with the removal you performed. The information you removed, had a contextual value for me (i.e.: Research). Thanks in advance. Eduemoni↑talk↓  05:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, ignore my statement above, I see that you are currently engaging on actually making the page better. Regards Edue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 05:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Change in format
For article "Pneumonia" I moved 2 of the 3 navboxes out, into a table of navpages, to double the display time of the page and reduce the clutter on some browsers. Not all browsers show "navboxes" as boxes, and IE7 or IE8 will often simply list all the wikilinks down the page as dozens of scrolling lines against a colored-rectangle background. The navbox-formatting problems were introduced about 2-3 years ago, doubling the time for articles to display (hi-speed internet pauses before navboxes), and appending the huge navspam lists onto the bottom of a page. Just one navbox is not so bad, because only about 40-70 lines are scrolled, on IE7 or IE8, to show the nav-links of one navbox, but several navboxes will overwhelm the IE browser with numerous scroll screens of navspam. Meanwhile, the small table of 2 navpage links will correctly display as a small table box (with box border) on all browsers. The IE7, IE8 and IE9 users have been hopping mad (aka "furious") about Wikipedia's dreadful, trashy appearance, extra scroll-pages, and mouse lockups, and some admins or developers have submitted bug reports, but from what I've heard, the entire CSS-class redesign of Wikipedia is almost totally incompatible with IE7, IE8 or IE9 (which does not handle table classes that way), and for that reason, many users have switched to Firefox browser, which I wish was installed in all hotels and libraries to allow guests to access formatted screens in Wikipedia, but the result is that Wikipedia is essentially almost unusable for IE browsers, and many users have quit trying to fight the format problems and massive, scrolled navbox lists. The WP readership browser patterns show user percentages of IE have cratered (below 10%), to almost none ("Gee, I wonder why"), while the world at large still has numerous IE7 or IE8 users. I think the developers are completely overwhelmed, unable to fix IE display problems (with IE map dots on the wrong spots), while distracted by tangent what-the-huh projects, like wp:Wikidata usurping the trivial interwiki links out of every article, or the dreaded Feedback tool (which IE browsers cannot use), or the VisualEditor (not for IE), or the old Liquid Threads ("Liquid Dreads"), or whatever high-priority toy. This is typical of a system where user "readability" is not a core pillar, and so the fact that 35% of browsers cannot use Wikipedia is not a developer's priority, as long as the other browsers can access the Wikidata "edit-links" button to show hidden interwiki links. Anyway, reducing the bottom navboxes will double display speed and reduce the clutter for IE7/IE8 users (until they all quit). -Wikid77 (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks the problems seems to be IE rather than Wikipedia. IE doesn't display much properly and crashing regularly. I carry something else on a stick. Would be good for Wikipedia to support it a little while longer I guess. There are problems with editing interface in Chrome as well. Is there consensus with where to go with the issue of navboxes? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for MSIE thwarts trendy other-browser features: I think the solution to support MSIE is to develop a separate "MSIE skin" which works the way Wikipedia ran in 2009. Old Deletionpedia runs perfectly, and fast, on hotel computers with IE7 or IE8 (try: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com). WP has been browser-screwed with non-portable CSS crap. Currently, the suggestion is for MSIE users to set browser skin to "Nostalgia" skin, to reduce screen lockups and JavaScript cyber-excursions. However, I think much of the CSS-classocracy would need to be reverted to simple div-tags and HTML table formats to work with MSIE screen formats. However, that would be good overall, as otherwise, there seems no end to the rampant expansion of CSS-sub-sub-sub-classes here. As for navboxes, the general concept is to "hate all templates, not the templaters" because, without templates, all large articles reformat within, like, 2 seconds, but with templates, slow to 5-45 seconds. The current transition to Lua-based cite templates provides only 2x faster edit-preview, and omitting extra navboxes would provide 2x faster page display (in major articles such as "Pneumonia"). Wikipedia is drowning in crufted cruftism and cruftocracy, and that is why professors note our core articles are poor, as too busy shuffling cruft to work on "Plato" or "Eratosthenes" or "Duns Scotus" which was rightly criticized as poor quality. Since we have driven away much of the 42% MSIE-browsing world with WP screen lockups, the remaining browser people must work 2x harder to thwart the crowding avalanche (cruftalanche) which is smothering this wikicruftosaurus. The extra navboxes are just too excessive in major articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I hate cruft. I like boring simple encyclopedic layouts. And primarily work on key medical topics. Did not realize that this IE thing was such a big issue. Could the default skin not be based on the persons browser?


 * Would love to hear more on how to make wikipedia better for those with back connections and poor computers. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The default skin for readers could, in fact, be chosen by browser brand, because since IE6, most browsers now provide the website with the user's browser model/version data, which is why the browser "market share" data is so accurate; rather than just counting random samples, millions of browser messages can be precisely counted by browser model/version. For IE7 or IE8 users who have display lockups, I recommend for them to set Special:Preferences as "Nostalgia" skin, but also more editors writing articles could use Template:Location_map_all to show map location-dots on the correct map spots for all browsers, such as a "map" of the human brain to show dots (or circles) at various brain structures (see letter "G" for circles around letters in cursive-text diagram). Meanwhile, hard-code any markers into medical images, because the other template-based markers often shift across the image depending on browser type, marking the "brain area" at the chin or outside the right ear. For text style, I often try to revise the intro text of articles as somewhat boring for teenage readers who hope to understand "erythropoiesis" or "transcriptase" or such, before launching into detailed "med-speak" which hospital staff can also read. It is a balancing act, to not dumb-down the text too much, where professionals would wonder if the remainder of the article was worth reading, although many academics have learned to avoid WP articles as non-peer-reviewed ramblings. It all depends on knowing the average age of readers is "14-19.5 years" or such, so Wikipedia should do more to question readers about who the current readers are, rather than how they feel about reading an article. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One or two small navboxes per article would be a start: There might be many cases where a topic fits into 2 closely-related navboxes, such as "Hurricane Katrina" with its own navbox of subarticles, but also "Hurricanes of 2005" as a short 2nd navbox. The major problems come when people convert large categories into navboxes tacked onto dozens of articles, while instead the readers need to learn to click category links and see the "20" related categories ("Category:Sedatives"), rather than have 20 navbox sections. For years, article "Morocco" has been the bellwether, poster child example of navbox usage (with 11 navboxes which doubled the article size), to judge those bottom navboxes to see if 11 navboxes were a few too many or not enough. The minor navboxes can be moved into a table of "Related navpages" so there is always a chance to add several links to navboxes which some readers might find very valuable in their exploration. However, we know, from the clicked follow-on links, that very few people visit the navbox links. We do not even have data to show if people view past the 1st scroll-down of the page. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Alcohols in alcoholic beverages
I have placed:

In articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_alcohol which apparently redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_alcohol#Intoxicants so there is obvious reason that it might appear weird that it is placed there. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Have reverted the edits in question. 1) What does "alcohol family content" mean even 2) the "about" template is not needed as there is no question what these articles are about. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This about text should at least be in the alcoholic beverage article, can you please correct it to something better? Best regards.
 * What should be at alcoholic beverage? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This: Also, thank you for helping me out with the time stamp problem --David Hedlund (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It already is? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please proof-read:

Alcohol family, you know they prohibit drug familys these days so it would be useful to add that term. By the way, I created alcohols in alcoholic beverages, I want to do something useful with it. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry still not sure what you mean by "you know they prohibit drug familys these days"? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes --David Hedlund (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a language barrier? I have no idea if they prohibit drug familys these days? I do not know what you mean by "they" or what you mean by "drug familys". Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "The compounds most commonly regarded as comprising the family of MDxx derivatives" - Substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines The MDxx family is prohibited in the UK as far as I known. Alcohols are the family of compounds that contain one or more hydroxyl (-OH) groups attached to a single bonded alkane. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stop copy-paste for good. I will take a break for a week to think about the current situation and learn to work in new ways. Please do not ban me meanwhile. --David Hedlund (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, one is allowed zero copy and pasting for many reasons. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your reply regarding if it's cs
"With all of the respect, he didn't say no. His final statement was if the "silver complexes bearing bidentate N-heterocyclic carbene ligands" is falling under cs. So I have gave my reasoning, that cs doesn't define the atom's position or anything. As long as it's silver, ie it contains the atoms of silver, and as long as its evenly dispersed in another medium, it is cs in the direct meaning. And, as long as it contains silver (atoms of silver) it's cs in it's broad meaning. Ryanspir (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)"
 * Let me kindly allow to continue the thread in this section. I would be delighted to know your opinion.

My own current opinion is: "Colloidal" doesn't define a form or structure of silver atoms or molecules. It only specifies that the silver which is used is equally dispersed through another substance.
 * An example would be, if there would be tablets of silver and we would call them tabletable silver, it would mean just as much. It would just mean that the silver we are referring to is in the form of a tablet. It wouldn't specify by itself what kind of silver, in what way the atoms or molecules are arranged or anything else. It would be a collective name, same as "colloidal" is not a specification, but a collective name.
 * This is just my humble opinion and if you disagree I would be happy to know your reasoning. However if you find my that my reasoning sounds valid, we may agree that Leeds univ is indeed researching cs for the purpose of cancer treatment. Ryanspir (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Post on the talk page please. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have posted it in a brief form on the talk page. However I'm posting it here because we have DRN and I would like to reach a consensus. :My opinion is that cs should not be introduced to the reader as a quack medicine, because it's generic collective term that includes all forms of silver, including that one which is being investigated (and with success and I guess with a good preliminary research) by a respective univ of leeds. Ryanspir (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI I have commented on the relevance of the Leeds in vitro study to Quackwatch's characterization of ingested colloidal silver here.   14:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Zad, you have posted this sentence on several talk pages, even on absolutely irrelevant ones as the DRN discussion page. Even though me and other editors have mentioned to you that it's not the right venue.
 * If I would be interested in your opinion, I would post it on your talk page or on the article talk page. The reason I'm posting it here as you could have realized is because I'm interested to know the opinion of Doc James. So could you please give some air here and let us have our discussion? Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

History
I have been revising the History of medicine article and note that many diseases and conditions lack references to historical sources. So I have been adding useful short citations to help the readers who want to know the historical backgrounds. Rjensen (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Typically we use inline references after adding text and than associated the reference with it. Adding unused references is a little strange. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Further reading is pretty standard in historical materials in Wikipedia. The goal is to help the readers who would not otherwise find this material very easily. (It's buried in an encyclopedia.) the WP:Further guideline is explicit: Further reading: "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations."Rjensen (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all existing works. We are here to write an encyclopdia not lists of sources. People can easily find these through google books etc. Thus removed again. By the way why this book and not the dozens of others on the topic? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * indeed. adding one book title does not create "a catalog." What non-historians need is a brief overview--a few pages which summarizes the scholarship and points to additional sources. They cannot get that through google. There are not "dozens" of such books, only a handful. The McGrew volume is one of 3 most highly recommended by Roy Porter a leading historian of medicine at  Now let's go over why the cites were removed when you never looked at them nor replaced them with anything else? Rjensen (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure they where not "cites" or "references" to the article. I do not see an easily accessible copy online. The book in question is relatively old. May be post at WT:MED if you want a further opinion. Adding this ref generally to a many articles was another concern. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * is there a better book that is fully accessible online? Maybe--but nobody has been citing it. McGrew is in over 1000 libraries which is very good indeed, and you can buy a copy, postpaid, for $5, which is what I did. I recommend Jmh649 take a closer look. Rjensen (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Page move
Thanks for your thoughts and assuming good faith. I was working off the information and support on the talk page exclusively, without following over to the apparently lengthy discussion over at the talk page. If there is a feeling of consensus among the project, feel free to reopen a move discussion.Tiggerjay (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Dearchiving DRN case
The Talk:Medical uses of silver DRN case has been de-archived in order to close it. Please visit the page and state whether you will accept the proposed solution. There will be no extensive discussion. If all participants agree to it, the case will be closed as 'resolved', if not, as 'failed'. CarrieVS (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

TB photo
That photo was uploaded as part of an assignment with my class by User:Ashburyheights18 I dont know if she has a better version. The rest of the photos can be seen at  We are moving onto translating good articles in en.wiki over to es.wiki.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Water fluoridation
I think this page needs protection. New editor is not getting it. Colin°Talk 17:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you consider mediating? Colin°Talk 17:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Protected it before you even left this note. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there Doc - it's apparent that I am 'not getting it'. I do understand that editors become very protective of their pages, but would love some outside input on what to do when obviously misleading statements are being protected. Thanks! Tilapidated (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus must be developed on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I get that, but in practice a small group of editors who want to prevent any change simply refuse to consider any changes to the article, even corrections of fact. Is there a way to get a broader set of people involved? Tilapidated (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is called a RfC Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Tilapidated, "who want to prevent any change simply refuse to consider any changes to the article" is simply not true. And once you use the talk page properly to carefully propose changes based on the best sources, then you'll find out it isn't true. Could you perhaps consider a wee break from the article and return to it with fresh eyes later. Colin°Talk 17:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd love your insight into how better to characterize Colin's edits. Thank you Tilapidated (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We never comment on other people. We only comment on the content in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the edits, not the person. Tilapidated (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is up to the person proposing a change to provide justification for the change.


 * If you refer to the 40% number this 2012 dental textbooks supports it  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that other sources cite a 40% reduction number, my issue is that the original study authors do not. There's no dispute that some studies claim that - the only issue is whether, in reporting on this particular review, we should preserve the authors' explicit statement that on the basis of their evidence they can make no specific claim about the level of reduction, or instead splice in a completely different researcher's interpretation. I have no issue with presenting both, my complaint is that it appears from the current text that the York study supports the 40% figure, which its authors explicitly reject. Tilapidated (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would be good to use newer reviews IMO. But now I must sleep. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, but since this review is mentioned in the article already, the question of how to describe the findings remains. Tilapidated (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So state that you wish to change working X to wording Y based on source Z with exact wording from the source in a RfC and give it a week or two for discussion. Maybe others will come with better sources than what is currently used. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I will do that - but I'm confused that you want 'better sources' - the paragraph in question is about the York Review, a major study that lays the groundwork for much of the later work in this area. We are not trying to establish in this sentence anything absolute about fluoridation, but simply report what the authors of the study said. Tilapidated (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

James, it appears that "DumpBOT" has removed the semi-protection along with the full-protection from WF. It may be worth restoring the semi, and of course, keeping an eye on things. Thanks. Colin°Talk 11:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)