User talk:Doc James/Archive 45

Re migraine
I have rewritten any part that might have given you concern. I have also rewritten a sentence that was misleading as it stood. I disagree with you over the non inclusion of the known genes for 2 reasons.

The first is that while you make reference to 'the subpage', this subpage appears (to me anyway) to be non existent. I may be incorrect: if so I apologise and would be grateful for the link to the subpage.

The second and more substantial reason is that this IMHO is fairly basic material. My own feeling is that if a known gene is causative of a disease/syndrome then it belongs on the aetiology section of the page dealing with the disease/syndrome. It would be difficult to discuss (say) Down's syndrome without mentioning the extra chromosome: or Noonan's without the missing one. It is difficult to discuss haemophilia without mentioning the causative mutations. Quite a number of pages in WP (?the majority) dealing with inheritable diseases/syndromes do include a mention of the genes when they are known. For these reasons I incline to the view that the page is better with this material than without it. YMMV.

In the instant case the first of these genes was associated with migraine almost two decades ago. That is hardly 'cutting edge' material. The genes are themselves not discussed in detail on the migraine page: I do agree with you there that such material would be better placed on another page. For this reason the genes have been linked to the pages that do discuss the genes in detail.

Finally to head off any complaints about 'primary sources' I have ensured that material was referenced by a review of these genes.DrMicro (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The subpage I refer to is this one Familial hemiplegic migraine. This is a rare cause of migraines thus my opinion that the details should be discussed on the subpage. I discussed these concern on the talk page here which is were further discussion should occur. The other concern is that the text you have added is fairly similar to another paper. This is better now. I have not checked to make sure the ref supports the text in question yet.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment
Not sure how unreffed info is to be removed as if it is an auto correct feature. Eszopiclone is a merely a stub. A page full of negative, misleading material that does not reflect therapeutic realities in relation to eszopiclone is not a reason to "remove", "refeed", "restore" (as if I had damaged the property of the commons, and if that is interpreted as my intent, you are misunderstood), while also giving no credence neither effort to add to the article. So in what world Doc, does eszopiclone fit your paradigm? In reply, I would also appreciate more than direct links to paraphasing or fundamental characterizations of a Wiki page, though I ponder why you ignore the gradient scale, and your rigid tone in your edit summary. Cooperation builds a stronger Wikipedia, a stronger community, and more accurate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuQuebec (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You removed this text "the benefit over placebo is of questionable clinical significance" which was supported by a 2012 meta analysis published in the BMJ. So not sure what you refer to.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Table for Sepsis Diagnostic Criteria
Hey James,

I've posted the table on the Talk:Sepsis page and was hoping you might weigh in about format. The way it's presented in the paper is by system affected, but I wonder if it might be more clear to present the criteria based on kind of finding (Vitals, Physical Exam, Lab Tests, etc.). What do you think?

Mike Turken (talk · contribs · email) (If I write on your page, please reply on mine.) 03:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma (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) 11:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-original text
Thanks, I've changed the wording. (JCJC777 —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

my apologies on the refs; somehow I picked up an earlier version of the document and edited that. humble apologies - I did not realise you had changed them (JCJC777
 * No worries. Expect as much :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Vitamins and Heart Disease
Why does the article on Heart Disease say: "the effect of antioxidant supplementation (vitamin E, vitamin C, etc.) or vitamins generally has not been shown to improve protection against cardiovascular disease"? Another wikipedia page on Niacin (Vitamin B3) contains a huge section on the cardiovascular protective effects and states, amongst other facts that : "Niacin has been used for over 50 years to increase levels of HDL in the blood and has been found to modestly decrease the risk of cardiovascular events in a number of controlled human trials.[3] Because niacin blocks the breakdown of fats, it causes a decrease in free fatty acids in the blood and, as a consequence, decreases the secretion of VLDL and cholesterol by the liver.[44] By lowering VLDL levels, niacin also increases the level of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) or "good" cholesterol in blood, and therefore it is sometimes prescribed for people with low HDL, who are also at high risk of a heart attack.[45][46]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niacin#Deficiency

If I remember you protected the page from further unregistered edits since I inserted some data about Vitamin C clinical trials proving prevention of heart disease because there was a review article of numerous trials using various vitamins to prevent/treat heart disease and from that it seemed there were an equal number of good and bad results and therefore vitamin were deemed useless for treatment, or prevention. Quite ridiculous really since the trial I listed I could not find in the review article and it was short of details when listing all the trials as well (on the website of the citation used). The page is still locked to edit for non-registered users like me.--197.79.0.9 (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I see the article is now unprotected. I'm going to now update it now with the info I listed above about Niacin (Vitamin B3). I will use the exact same references that the Niacin page uses for citations when it comes to it's cardiovascular protective effects.

Below is my new edit: Niacin, one of the types of Vitamin B3, seems to be the exception to the rule. Niacin has been used for over 50 years to increase levels of the healthy HDL cholesterol in the blood and has been found to modestly decrease the risk of cardiovascular events in a number of controlled human trials. --197.79.0.1 (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay have simply shortened it a bit. Some of these details are best within the Niacin article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sunburn
You reverted a line I wrote on what "everyone knows" (that insufficient sun exposure causes problems) but was not mentioned and relevant to the article. Can you suggest a better way to put what must be an important fact? Is not the wikilink to Vitamin D deficiency sufficient reference? Doug butler (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a source that says "sunscreen causes vitamin D deficiency"? We cannot say this without a reliable secondary source. Okay found one  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Thanks. Doug butler (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

EFT revert
Hi Jmh649, I'm new to wiki editing and would like to understand the logic. You just reverted my edit on EFT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Freedom_Techniques#Research) because I used a primary source. Yet, the first paragraph of this section I edited is also a primary source and it has not been deleted: "A 2003 study found that EFT produced a slight benefit in managing nonclinical anxiety issues, but that this did not seem to be related to the tapping technique or the theorized meridians.[3]" Why is that? Regards, Margarida Silva Mmmcsilva (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC
 * You are right. I have removed that primary research paper to. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Schizophrenia revert
Hi I don't understand taking out the self-awareness section; this is material and important (particularly to people with family members who have schizophrenia)? JCJC777
 * The material was not removed just moved higher up. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's see
With this threat you do not seem to understand WP:INVOLVED, just as you misunderstood your unblock of User:Fladrif, an editor with whom you are deeply involved with. I think you should get a mentor, or give up the admin tools. Dreadstar ☥   20:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation
Hi James, I was wondering if you'd be willing to return to FGM to help out. User:Middayexpress has arrived there, and is reverting almost all attempts to improve the article, which I'm trying to take to GA status. He's using inappropriate sources, or misusing appropriate ones, sometimes lifting what they say word-for-word without attribution, at other times misreporting what they say. On one occasion when I asked him to post the source material on talk – because he had access and I didn't – he misquoted the source to support his view (by lifting part of the source's sentence out of context; see here). I'm therefore uncomfortable now with anything he adds, but he's reverting most of what I try to fix. I've left a note to try to appeal to him on his talk page (here). Any input would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, Middayexpress has moved the discussion to my talk page here. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Will take a look. TWB wishes to translate this article once it is GA. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd love to get it there, but I'm close to burning out trying to deal with that editor. It's time-consuming and I'm making almost no progress. See here. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Skin Problem
Hi I have been getting these welts on my body for the past 3 months. It seems to be worse on the areas that is warmer and more moist. The MD initially thought that it is a fungus but with the medication it still remains. What could you suggest for me. Could it be Urticaria? I travel into Africa a lot.

Skin Problem
Hi I have been getting these welts on my body for the past 3 months. It seems to be worse on the areas that is warmer and more moist. The MD initially thought that it is a fungus but with the medication it still remains. What could you suggest for me. Could it be Urticaria? I travel into Africa a lot.


 * Hard to tell with that quality of image. Did they do any scrapings? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of Deaf
Capitalization of deaf when referring to the group that identify with Deaf culture, compared to people with hearing loss who don't identify with the Deaf community, is culturally appropriate. It is not covered in the MOS as far as I can determine. FlatOut 12:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not do this when we refer to other groups of people so IMO we should not do it here. Maybe discuss on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is done on the Deaf culture page . I did start a discussion on the talk page, but it seems you jumped the gun. FlatOut 12:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I started a discussion on another page. Since there is a interwiki link to Deaf culture I am happy to leave it as it is now. FlatOut 12:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Were on deaf culture is this link? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that Deafness has a section on Deaf Culture see which has a link to Deaf culture. On the Deaf culture page, Big D small d is explained and it is used appropriately throughout that article. FlatOut 12:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

UTIs
Thank you for managing this article and for your contributions. However I respectfully disagree about the removal of my previous edits. I feel that if there is a section under "Treatment" for uncomplicated UTIs, there should likewise be a section for complicated UTIs, since they are treated so differently. You're right, some of the info that I added was covered elsewhere in the article. However, if one were to look specifically for how to treat a complicated UTI (as I was, while I was working in the ER the other day), then that person may not have the time to read the entire article to sift out a couple bits of information, under various topics, that could easily be covered in one paragraph under the correct topic. Some redundancy may be necessary and is acceptable. In short, if there is a section entitled "treatment", then everything treatment-related should be covered there. That is the point of a paragraph title. Dryphi (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay I have moved the sentence on treatment of complicated UTIs to the correct spot in the management section per your suggestion. Would need a ref for "Typically an admission to the hospital is warranted." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Great thanks. The "Uncomplicated" section was intended to be a work-in-progress; i.e. a section header that others could add to since I felt it had a place there. I will work on finding you a source for the admission quote. I believe that was from a practice test I took which could not be referenced directly. Dryphi (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Swahili pageview stats
In short, yes, you can get pageview statistics for the Swahili wikipedia. Stats.grok.se tracks views for all wikimedia projects (the drop down menu doesn't show all). To see the list of most viewed the last month: http://stats.grok.se/sw/top or for an article: http://stats.grok.se/sw/latest/Mwanzo - just change the last part of the url to the page title to go to any other page. henrik • talk  20:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks that is great. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Garrondo
Hi, are you an administrator of this? there is this guy Garrondo who reverts everything I do and not only that he makes endless comments, most of them only to generate controversy or provoke a response. I would have stop editting on medicine topic if it weren-t for him. can you tell him to stop doing that? Thanks Booklaunch (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have pointed out my opinion on Booklauch edits at talk page so other editors could give their opinion since I believe that most edits have not followed WP:MEDRS and MEDMOS (Moreover Booklaunch has actually disregarded WP:MEDRS). I hope you are one of the editors that comment on my comments. As a side note the fact that he believes that I make "endless comments" at talk page just to generate controversy, when in each one I give my opinion so others can comment, indicates how poorly this editors understands wiki functioning. Finally as he states in his talk page, he has a heavy POV that infiltrates most of his edits and include the idea of a Big-pharma and medical lobby conspiracy in wikipedia.--Garrondo (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Book in this edit you deleted a 2009 meta analysis? What are you doing? Unless you find a newer systematic review and meta analysis which I have not seen on this specific aspect and even then not appropriate. Yes I am an admin. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Source questions
I saw your comment about using high quality resources. Is the AHRQ Innovations Exchange not considered high quality? It does provide evidence ratings and disclosures. I also saw your comment about using secondary rather than primary sources. Should primary sources always be avoided? Thanks for your help with best practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FieldsTom (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes generally primary sources should be avoided in main articles. The issue is one of undue weight. Secondary sources put the literature into perspective while primary sources do not. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Refs on lead and others
I prefer to have them than not having them, and when I "own" (you understand) an article I have usually included them (as for example in multiple sclerosis). Similarly I am one of those that prefers to add 3 times the same ref to 3 consecutive sentences that only once. However, I also try to follow existing ways, so if there a no refs in the lead of a referenced article, I do not add them or even eliminate a single one if it is a non-controversial fact.

A non-related matter: I have been thinking of sending the multiple sclerosis article for the JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews. I believe it qualifies since it is a broad article, that has been adequately updated and could be quite cited. Nevertheless I would need to include it in the 20 slots free of charge, since I have no money for medical publication in my current research job. On the other hand I would also need a few weeks to improve the research section since it is full of outdated info. Do you think it is possible/and or adequate?--Garrondo (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Great excellent idea. Please do. One of those 20 spots is yours :-) Once the update / peer review is done we can than send it for translation. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to your question
In response to your question, I didn't say Boghog shouldn't be involved. If you read my comment to him carefully, you'll see that I wrote that I wish he'd discuss major edits on the talk page first. I hesitate for a long time before leaving that comment, but it was at the request of a student who had a lot of complaints about Boghog's disrupting their work. In the long run, it turned out that the student in question was not doing nearly as much as he could have to engage the Boghog directly. In our course page, we talk a lot about communicating with, and working with, outside editors. I suppose I could have done a better job stressing that to the student. Klortho (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks that is what I assumed :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Chocolate and acne
Please see this article from Medscape. I suspect the Diet section needs to be slightly modified to say that the old view of chocolate (viz. that it is unrelated to acne exacerbations) was based on a 1969 study funded by the chocolate industry (as reported by the BBC) and may not be correct. MLPainless (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We already mention this in that it is sweet and can contain milk. Medscape and the BBC are not really suitable sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's more than that. Quite apart from the fact that Block's study used pure cocoa powder in capsules (or gelatine for the placebo) and was reported in major news media worldwide and is now discussed on most major medical sites, e.g. here at WebMD, there is now another very recent (2013) study in the journal Cytokine (discussed here in full & here) showing the relationship between chocolate and acne from a cytokine modulation perspective, and once again suggesting that there is a relationship between chocolate and acne because chocolate may influence antimicrobial host defences. These effects were not noted for milk and sugar on their own, AFAIK. MLPainless (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean this article that looked at cytokine production in cell culture? Would be easy to do a large human study. I still see no definitive evidence. This 2012 review still says no evidence PMID:23062156 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that WP is supposed to follow and not lead, but do we have to follow so far behind? ? ;¬) Review studies are often few and far between. MLPainless (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The popular press is so often wrong as is much newly published small research trials. Thus to prevent so much wrongness from getting into Wikipedia we hold back a bit. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Pity, because I think we'll have to wait many a year to see another review in this area. What about noting in the text that the "seminal" study that set for tone for all that followed, including the review study you're relying on, was funded by the Chocolate Manufacturers' Association of the United States of America (now called the National Confectioners Association)? MLPainless (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a review article that states that? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think MEDRS dictates that funding sources can only be cited to review articles, does it? MLPainless (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What ref do you have for the funding source? We specifically do not use primary sources in an attempt to refute secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the funding factoid is sourced to the news (BBC, and other sites). The fact that the key chocolate-exonerating study was funded by chocolate manufacturers is just the sort of tidbit a good encyclopedia should contain ... at least IMO. MLPainless (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In medicine you need to show evidence of an association before we state there is an association. Thus we state "Other associations such as chocolate and salt are not supported by the evidence" The issue is that one needs to control for milk and sugar consumption before one can say cocoa is the cause. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The ref in question was not blinded, had no control group, involved 10 people and it appears that they stopped their usually acne medication "Subjects consumed a maximum of 340 g (12 oz, or three standard 4-oz chocolate bars) of chocolate at baseline under the investigator’s supervision and maintained a regular diet for 1 week. Volunteers had no over the counter or prescribed medications for 2 weeks." They had more than one comparitor yet still are trying to use a p of 0.05 "A statistically significant increase in the mean number of total acneiform lesions (comedones, papules, and pustules) was detected on both days 4 (P = .031) and 7 (P = .050) compared to baseline." This is wrong. One needs to use lower p values with more than one primary end pointy. Conclusions one can draw are none. Feel free to ask for further opinions but we do not use popular press or poor quality primary research studies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I was merely recommending that the industry's involvement in the initial key study be noted in the text. It's a non-controversial fact, after all. BTW, there is a brand new review study on chocolate, noting its link to acid reflux. Is that in the article? MLPainless (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would we mention that cocoa is related to reflux in the article on acne? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, it should go into the chocolate article under Health Effects. It's not there yet... MLPainless (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

DocJames is such good sports... he just wants some love, send him a chocolate brownie MLPainless!Booklaunch (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

EFT edit revert
Hi Jmh649, You undid my addition stating the information was not notable and asking for an independent source. Please explain why my source lacks independence. As for notability, I also disagree: this is a Reception section, and the information I added does show how EFT is being received/viewed by some therapists. Within the context of the section - where information shown is all negative regarding EFT, a positive reception by any group seems to me quite out of the ordinary. Thanks, Margarida Silva Mmmcsilva (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding a flying for a conference is not a suitable source. Has anyone commented on this inclusion? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why is it not suitable? It does show that a group of therapists considers EFT valuable enough to have their members listen to a talk on the subject. Isn't this precisely the point in this section? Why does this source lack independence? Thanks, Margarida Silva (And no, I didn't receive any other comments, if that's what you're asking.) Mmmcsilva (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The question I asked was has a secondary source comment that "this conference included a talk on this subject". This would be considered a primary source and thus not suitable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm totally new to this and hence all the questioning. I understand as regards research that secondary sources are used over primary sources (at least in some cases). But why does a primary source like this one not constitute a good source since it's not science we're talking about here? The document does show one factual item: the group did include a talk on EFT. You don't need anyone else saying it to make it any truer. So I still don't get why it isn't a suitable source. Thanks, Margarida Silva Mmmcsilva (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources is one of the primary ways we determine notability and limit primary research. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. But it isn't the only way, am I correct? Across Wikipedia there are many primary sources being used. And this isn't even research, as I mentioned. So, I'm re-asking: the information presented by the source I used is relevant by itself and really not subjective, so why can't it be used? Notability, within the context of this particular page on EFT, is totally self-evident. Margarida Silva Mmmcsilva (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You could ask for an outside opinion on the talk page. Just because they talked about it does not mean it was an endorsement. The issue is that it was presented as such and with the source in question it is impossible to determine. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear James, That's really quite an extraordinary claim. There are many different types of endorsements, and for many different purposes. Which one are you alluding to? Wouldn't you think that it's safe to say that the group endorses EFT at least to the point of thinking this therapy is interesting enough that its members would benefit from listening to a talk on it? I'd say that otherwise they wouldn't have included it on the program, considering this is a staff development training forum. So I'm betting it is not impossible to determine a certain level of endorsement, and that's all my original text implied. I didn't even include a quote from the program which could be construed as a huge endorsement: "This is a tool that should be in everyone’s “toolbox”!", they say. Thanks! Margarida Silva Mmmcsilva (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. These sorts of talks represent one persons point of view. It is not peer reviewed. It is not published. I have never seen this type of info added to a page dealing with another treatment using this type of ref. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course the talk represents one person's point of view. It's the decision - by the organizers - to include a talk on this particular topic that says the subject is interesting - in their view - to therapists. The peer review and the publication are non-issues, since we're talking about reception and not about research. Let's not get things mixed up! In this case the organizers thought EFT was interesting enough for their staff development objectives that they included one talk on it. And THIS is what I want to to convey, because I see it as relevant for this section. Not the content of the talk itself. Agree? It seems really quite obvious. Margarida Mmmcsilva (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear James, Do you plan on answering? Thanks, Margarida Mmmcsilva (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to ask the opinion of other Wikipedians. I disagree with the inclusion. You can try a WP:RfC if you wish wider discussion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * James is right, Margarida. Very few conference presentations are worthy of inclusion as sources. This one in particular shows no evidence of editorial input, indeed the "committee" seems to include people who are rather closely related to the presenters. We would have to treat it as a primary source, bordering on self-published. We don't really want either of those characteristics.LeadSongDog come howl!  21:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear LSD, Thanks for adding your comment to my discussion with James at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#EFT_edit_revert I'm not arguing for the content of a conference presentations to be used as a source. If you read the thread fully I think you'll find that what I defend is that a sentence be included stating that this particular association included a talk on EFT at a staff development forum. This is a indication of how EFT is being received by one particular sector of society which, I believe, is precisely the idea in this section on Reception. Or am I getting it wrong? Thanks, Margarida


 * Problem is that without a secondary source indicating that the fact that it was included is relevant, we cannot know. We do not know if the conference was notable, if the association is really notable, or if the association considered the talk notable (and no, just the fact that it appears in the conference does not mean the association considered it notable, there are maaaaaaaaaaaaany talks in maaaaaaaaaaany conferences that have nothing notable and even if the conference is considered formative for an association or body the content of a specific talk is simply crap, not really endorsed by organizers). --Garrondo (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Gene Wiki bot
sorry, just have time for a brief reply to your question. We maintain our bot code in this code repository. We have it configured to run once every two days under User:ProteinBoxBot. Happy to answer any other questions you might have. Thanks for the helpful thoughts! Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Liver
There's been a bit of IP vandalism at Liver over the last day or so, would you consider semi-protecting it for a bit? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

strep pharyngitis image
Hi Dr. Heilman,

I'm a third year medical student on my Family Medicine rotation and am giving a talk to other 3rd years and one faculty member on Strep pharyngitis.

I was wondering if I had your permission to use the photo on the strep wiki page in my presentation. I am seeking a one time use permission from you.

Thanks in advance for considering.

3rd year student, expensive Washington DC medical school — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjm227 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly not a problem. And if you have the chance to take pictureS of interesting cases upload them here. Drop me a note if you need help. Also you should get involved with contributing to Wikipedia, and convince your class to do the same. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * just take it kiddo! Booklaunch (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me up RE pulmonary embolism echo/ecg!
I'm new to wikipedia and noticed the content was in the wrong spot. So I thought I'd do a quick change and that guy wasn't happy about it... Not sure why! Thanks. 94.193.2.50 (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries and welcome. Wikipedia takes a bit of persistence sometimes :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are you thanking him FOR???Booklaunch (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

NIH Event
Actually, I had relatively little to do with the event. I presented an hour or so of "how to", to the entire group; I reviewed some drafts of what other people were planning and offered suggestions (I think - it's been almost 4 years); and, as you noted, I recruited some Wikipedians to help with the small group sessions where NIH staff did some learning.

What I didn't do was interact, at all, with NIH. So I can't say what their level of interest was following the meeting. There seems to be some information about that and here here. But I never heard further that the NIH wanted more hands-on instruction, nor were there any further events at NIH that I know of. Perhaps Frank or others who were directly involved with the NIH can answer your question.

I will note that, as is all too common, we (the Wikimedia/Wikipedia team) underestimated the difficulty of doing "Wikipedia editing in a nutshell" - that is, of fitting meaningful information and instruction into a very short amount of time. Perhaps if/when the VisualEditor goes live, this won't be so much of an issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Burn GA
I checked out your latest changes, look good. I did some small copyediting, little stuff that would have taken longer to explain to you what needed to be done than for me to just make the change. There's a few requests for clarification and a request to add a bit about home remedies, especially aloe - I think a lot of readers might be pulling up the article and want to know whether aloe works. Everything else looks good. Once these last few bits are done it'll pass as GA.   19:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc, so close now. One more thing - the aloe addition was good but now the article is a little self-contradictory with aloe vs. SSD.  Article now says  that aloe might work, but not any better than SSD, which is not recommended.  Pls sort that out, should be it.    14:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes excellent point :-) That is the medical literature for you. It might work but than again it also might not work. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, confidence-inspiring. Burn is now officially  GA, congrats, fine work!    02:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Remind me again - do I have to put the green plus on Burn myself or does a bot do it?   02:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a bot does it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, it just did it.  02:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)