User talk:Doc James/Archive 55

Paroxetine
Hi, as you've probably gathered I respect and appreciate your opinion on my edits and hence I thought I would see if you disagree with any of my edits to the paroxetine page that's in my sandbox. I realise I had a lot of adverse effects listed but these were the effects listed in the product information sheets I cite and I tried to give them as much context as I could find. The thing is that the incidence of AEs is usually dose-dependent and hence some of the sources cited disagree on the exact incidence so I had to go with the general consensus of the sources. This is also one of the reasons why I tend not to give precise percentages because they vary a fair bit with a number of different factors so I just give approximate incidences. Fuse809 (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The exhaustive list is impressive but I am wondering if it is a little overwhelming within the article itself. Wondering if we should create a subpage called List of adverse effects of paroxetine and than try to summarize these adverse effects into prose? Thoughts? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a decent idea it's just I don't know it seems like a bit too little to justify an entire new page. But I agree it is fairly overwhelming so I'm trying to find some of the side effects that I could lump together so as to reduce the length of the lists and see if I accidentally repeated a few AEs. Fuse809 (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How is that? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know which part of my reply you're referring to. As far as the size issue goes I haven't seen any drug page where the AEs are listed on another page, and hence I'm not sure at which point that us wikipedians, as a community are willing to split the AE section into a new page as far as the general consensus. As with that article sodium nitroprusside I really don't know what to expect, I honestly thought that people would be OK with the new page because of the variety of different uses SNP has and how large a medical section would have to be in order to be comprehensive. I realise I could add a new discussion topic to the talk page but the simple fact is that the talk page of most drug pages is only edited once every few weeks to months and that seems like an awful lot of time to wait for some replies on something like this. Fuse809 (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Created a link here to   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, well I'm OK with it. It's just I thought that someone might disagree with it and say the split was unnecessary but I suppose you'd know better than me how well the wikipedia community will tolerate it. Fuse809 (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary
You just removed information from the Electronic cigarette article on the grounds that it is "not what the source said". In fact it was exactly what the source said - that e-cigs are about as effective a smoking cessation aid as patches. Your edit comment is at best misleading and definitely wrong. Unless you have a better reason for removing the information it would probably benefit the article if you restored it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it is not. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. The information you deleted accurately represented the source. Your edit summary claimed it didn't, and was therefore misleading. This has been raised by myself and another editor on the talk page and you are not engaging.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is (at least one) unanswered question on the talk-page, regarding your reversion then. --Kim D. Petersen 01:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Will give others a chance to weight in. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Others already have weighed in. There is an increasing level of concern at the repeated removal of any information that doesn't support a certain narrative. For example any study about efficacy as a smoking cessation aid is immediately deleted, while the WHO's increasingly outdated statement about there being no studies apparently must remain. POV, much?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck is your problem?

You have just deleted one of my edits AGAIN, claiming "did not show a benefit compared to placebo e-cigs." Well SO WHAT? Did I claim it did? No, I did not. I was citing a study to show that e-cigs - nicotine or otherwise; it doesn't matter - are effective for smoking cessation and THAT'S WHAT THE STUDY SHOWS. As far as I'm concerned WP:AGF is right out the window with you. You have repeatedly deleted properly sourced information while leaving misleading edit summaries. Stop pushing your POV.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take it to the talk page. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the point? You almost certainly won't respond, and if you do it will just be with your semi-coherent canned answers. I will be checking the talk page and I want an explanation for your deliberately misleading edit summary. Until I get that I have nothing more to discuss with you. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So am I getting an explanation or not?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been explained by multiple users many times. Me repeating the explanation will add little. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am asking you to explain the deliberately misleading edit summaries you used to justify reverting my edits - something that recent emails I have been sent lead me to believe isn't exactly a first for you - and not general issues to do with the article. You deleted my edits on the grounds that the source didn't support a claim I was not making. Once or twice could be written off as a misunderstanding, but you kept doing it even after I explicitly asked you to stop. There's no doubt in my mind that it was deliberate. So go on - explain yourself.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A colon while signing would have made the difference
FYI that didn't notify me because you didn't also re-sign your reply. (Per my long signature where I mention signing.) =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 11:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks. Glad you found it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

wikimediamedicine.eu
Hi James, I purchased wikimediamedicine.eu domain for the cause of Wiki Project Med. If you agree, I add .eu on the WPM's page. Cheers. -- Franciaio I'm listening 14:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciaio (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you. And yes please. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet another move request
Can you please move along with the page history the article Rotavirus enteritis to Rotaviral enteritis, the latter currently redirected to the former. Please change the redirects accordingly. Reason: ICD10 term for the disease reads Rotaviral enteritis. Since it is a minor modification, I do not think that it could be a significant issue.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 15:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Deafness RfC
I went ahead and asked at AN for the RfC on the Deafness talk to be closed. It's gone stale. Is that all right? Malke 2010 (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a parallel discussion on the capitalization question on the MOS talk that an editor wants to close, | here. I went ahead and closed the RfC on Deafness talk per SNOW since he didn't want to close the MOS RfC until Deafness talk closed. Hope that's okay. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

EFMR
Just to repeat that I posted earlier "Epilepsy and intellectual disability are two seperate issues, this Epilepsy in females with intellectual disability refers to co-morbid epilepsy and intellectual disability; so if one name is changed independently then then there is a need for any comorbid name to change as well." And all the information regarding the name change can be found in the intellectual disability. You can obviously find a cabal of consensus not ot comply, which seems to be usual Wikipedia practice. dolfrog (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I could not find any sources that use this term. Thus appears to be WP:OR Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * May be they have not published any since the recent name changes, and researchers and academics seem to always lag behind prefering to use the terminology they are used regardless of how offensive others my find it. I have no further comment to make as from my perspective this is pure disability discrimination and only causes me too much stress. dolfrog (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Soon as they do change I will support us changing to. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
I have just blocked IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker for a continuation of the edit war over on cough medicine. I'm leaving a note here to let you know that I feel you have been edit warring also, and that your actions are very close to warranting a block also. I have not blocked you because you have not continued the edit war since the report on the 3RR noticeboard, whereas the other editor has. Can you please avoid any temptation to revert the article for the time being, and just work on consensus on the talk page, because I feel that any further reverts would warrant a block. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Tiger. Yes thanks. I approached / overstepped the line a little. Will give time for others to comment. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Fluoxetine
Hi, as with yesterday I've got a page I'm editing that I thought I'd get your opinion on and as with yesterday it's in my Sandbox. For this one I don't think the AE lists are too long, but well that's one of the things I want your opinion on in case you think it's large enough to warrant a new page. Fuse809 (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Um I'm guessing you've missed this section so I'm gonna see if sending another message will cause your attention to be drawn to this section. Fuse809 (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think the colors will pass the MOS. Part of the issues are accessibility. What if the reader is color blind. I am still of the opinion that it is best to deal with the adverse effects in prose and then link out to a list of them. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

True, that did cross my mind, so, instead, it will past MOS if I use symbols like †, ‡, #, etc.? Plus I thought you Canadians spoke the Queen's English, with colours, rofl it's not a big deal but still, just curious. Fuse809 (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly that may be okay. Would ask on the talk page. We in Canada write a mix :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, in the documentation on the AEs of fluoxetine I found the term Buccoglossal syndrome and I thought that maybe you, as a quack, might know what it means. From what I have been able to gather it's a form of tardive dyskinesia. A quick google search doesn't really yield any helpful results. Fuse809 (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Should I take it that you do not have an answer to this question of mine? If so that's fine I have a few contacts at my local university I can ask if you cannot answer me. Fuse809 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This source gives a decent answer . Do sleep and work from time to time :-) There is not much on it. Seems similar to tardive dyskinesia. Not sure if it is exactly the same. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: to Mass in Kg weight in Pounds?
Back on my page:

My argument wasn't about kgs. or lbs., but mass versus weight.

Basically I did happen to be right, and the change you made is totally fine. If you don't really care about details, there's no real benefit in reading my detailed explanation. No snarkiness intended, by the way.

Contrary to common knowledge, there exists a subtle difference between mass and weight that prevents them from properly being used interchangeably in some contexts &#8209; mass is a unit of "heaviness" and weight "the force of heaviness" after gravity acts upon it.

Technically speaking, you can weigh in pounds but can't with kilograms. That's because pounds refers to weight, while the oddly-named unit slug refers to mass ; in the SI scheme kilograms refer to mass and newtons refer to weight.

Informal language inside the U.S. and (some Commonwealth nations) typically uses pounds for weight; everywhere else people generally use kilos for their mass. In many areas of science everything is measured in variants of kilo/grams in order to standardize measurements, making very little &#8209; if any &#8209; distinction between mass and weight. Physics is one exception where it really matters, although it generally records things in kilograms and converts it when and if it needs to give the measurement in pounds.

Ultimately, the difference between mass and weight is largely irrelevant, so no one really knows—or cares—about the distinction.

In conclusion, as far as the article goes, I'd say changing "mass" to "weight" was perfectly acceptable. In fact, the WHO [//whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_894_%28part1%29.pdf PDF] says on p. 8, my emphasis: BMI is...defined as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in metres. Nor do the terms change the resulting BMI. So leaving it as-is is fine; what really matters most is the page content.

Hope that was clear. Cheers, meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jfdwolff -- 21:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Western Conference on Global health in Seattle April 2014 use of media to teach health topics
Dear Doc James,

I was referred to you by Leigh thelmadatter, the volunteer Ambassador for Wikipedia in mexico whose medical students do some translation of Wikipedia in English to Spanish. Leigh has been helping to train me and some other people associated with working with Honduran Indians and Afro-Hondurans on how to edit Wikipedia pages and I have been working to get Hondurans in the US and Honduras involved in Wikipedia, also I have been asked to do an article inviting Blacks in the US to get involved with Wikipedia for the Atlanta black Star, one of the leading black newspaper in the US. We have some work getting other people who work with Indians and Afro-Latin Americans elsewhere in Latin America involved with the project.

As leigh pointed out in her report to Wikipedia on her presentations about Wikipedia in Honduras, one of the problems is access to computers with Internet connections. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has a project called Global libraries. One of the purposes of supporting libraries with Internet connections is so that people can access health information on the Internet, and obviously one of the places they go for health information is Wikipedia. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have given a huge $30 million grant to the University of Washington to work in the area of Global health. This global health program is hosting a Western Conference on Global health in Seattle April 2014. The theme is Censored: Gender and Social movements or something like that. One of the threads of the conference is the use of media to teach about health. Another is traditional people and questions of connections or clashed of traditional peoples beliefs and Western medicine. I contacted them, because I have been working on a study of how traditional Afro-Honduran midwives care for pregnant women, what they do at the time of birth in case of complications like hemorrhaging, the placenta not coming down, how to avoid infection, etc. and how they care for young children, so that they have much better outcomes than say the University of Pittsburgh or hospitals in Washington, DC in regards to health outcomes for Black women and children. My idea when I did the study was to be able to share it with traditional women in the Mosquitia, who for reasons I am not sure often have poor outcomes when babies are born. Since the information is published, I was willing to add it to Wikipedia, and be able to share it with women in the Mosquitia that way. They invited me to submit an abstract of a talk for this health conference. Since it is being done in conjunction with a program funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I think people from the foundation will be there, and often one or the other of them goes to these events in person. I have the contact information, etc. for the people who are organizing the conference, so that you could see if you would like to try to present something on the Wikipedia medical project. obviously it would be good to be on the radar of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation if people need funding for computers to access the Internet for medical knowledge or apparently there are Wikireaders that can be used to read Wikipedia offline in areas without constant Internet service. Both the bill and Melinda Gates Foundation at the UW Global health program are working strongly in Africa, for both their work in Latin America is pretty minimal, although there are thousands of Hispanics in Washington state, including Garifunas from Honduras. I have also seen this week that universities and other parts of the education system in Canada are working to become more aware of Indian/First nation beliefs about science, medicine, which is often partly tied to religious beliefs. A new book was just published by a native Author in Saskatchewan. I have some articles about Garifunas and their traditional beliefs and how this impacts Garifunas in the US, as kind of an orientation to people from the UW. My email is grif.wendy@gmail.com My Wikipedia user ID is culmi02, but there is nothing there. Wendy Griffin Culmi02 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes would be happy to discuss. My primary work on Wikipedia is part of this project WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force which is attempting to take 80-100 key health care articles and translate them into as many other languages as possible in partnership with Translators Without Borders. We are currently translating into nearly 60 languages 4 of which are native American (none unfortunately from my own Canada).WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/RTT. Would love to add Garifuna and Miskito to what we are working on. One of the benefits of this project is that much work is being done to get free access to people via cell phones (no data charges) as well many do not have computers most have cellphones. One can even get the beginning of the articles by SMS.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk back
 Alex discussion ★ 17:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

biased biased biased
I would expect changes be made to the description of chiropractic. The main authors are people who believe the chiropractic profession are quacks. If they researched medical studies done on chiropractic instead of finding articles that they believe should be displayed. Actually more people are realizing that chiropractic does wonders. Read the medical studies and get up to date on chiropractic instead of picking and choosing what articles fit your description of chiropractic. Ya there is controversy but how many great medical studies are successful on chiropractic? How many are against it? Successful out weigh the non successful. Also, please remove the serious adverse affects of chiropractic because it's dogma. Don't teach dogma because it's false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiroQ (talk • contribs) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Take it to the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are too polite Doc ;) --Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

K'iche test-wiki
Hi Jmh649! There was no K'iche test-wiki. I've created it at Wp/quc. You may add pages by adding the prefix "Wp/quc" to the page. Ebe 123  → report 02:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent news. Many thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Bad Start, Hope for Better Future
I am a bit "idiosyncratic" and "Lovecraftian" in my phraseology, and extremely polemical in my mind-set, but I shall try my best to be utterly crystalline objective on here and create a user account for such purposes. I have "inside" knowledge about the CEO of TEVA and frankly was not happy with this personality, but I shall abide by all the guidelines of Wikipedia as I see the quality effort improvement is real and I look forward to participating. I am a bit of a individualistic, eclectic, broadly-erudite maverick myself, D. Litt., D. Ph., M.D. and hope to interact with like-minded individuals dedicated to absolute objectivity. All I ask for is a chance. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome. Wikipedia is an interesting and some time frustrating place. We are simply trying to summarize the best avaliable evidence. Thus sources are essential for more or less every sentence that you add. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting out
Was this just the cold, or did you figure you've got nothing left to stay for? :-) LeadSongDog  come howl!  21:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I live here now. The mountain biking is a little better :-) So have let me association with the U of S lapse. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just beware of moss. LeadSongDog come howl!  06:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

thank you
Thanks you for the valuable guidance. I am quite new to this. Also I am intersted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Evidence_based_content_for_medical_articles_on_Wikipedia

However I cant add the edits I made to Articles to be updated with newer evidence section here.

Soumyadeep
 * What do you want to add and were? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Antidepressant article
Hi, I'm contemplating splitting (as the article has a tag on it saying that it's too large to navigate comfortably and hence the wikipedia community would like it to be either condensed or split) the antidepressant article into a new article containing the more technical information on the antidepressants such as mechanism of action (including pharmacokinetics), comparative efficacy, tolerability, pharmacokinetic and regulatory status and another with the simpler explanations, list of the commonly utilised agents, etc. I'm asking you to see whether you think that this sort of splitting would be a good idea and whether you have any additional things to add to these plans. Fuse809 (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you edited not long ago so in case you didn't notice this section hopefully this will bring your eye to my section. Fuse809 (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay let me look Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Have moved things around. A split some stuff off as a subpage. Yes if you were to write a few paragraph overview of the mechanism of action we could slit that off. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

My sandbox has a table I would like to add to the antidepressant page. It's still in development, however. Where would you recommend I place the finished product? Fuse809 (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be better on a list of antidepressants article as it could be huge - more missing off that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We could put in in the mechanism of action section and than work on summarizing that section and splitting much of it off as a subarticle as well. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Each class has a different mechanism of action - I'd suggest 4 x 3-4 sentence paras on them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

'ave a peakaboo at my latest edit of the antidepressant page's mechanism of action section and tell me do you think it's adequate for a summary and hence sufficient to allow us to create a new mechanism of action of antidepressants page? (Keep in mind I'm still filling in the refs, so you needn't mension that they haven't been completed yet). Fuse809 (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay split off. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Just one other thing, my table in my sandbox where do I put it? It's on pharmacokinetics and hence I'm reluctant to put it under mechanism of action as that's more pharmacodynamics. Fuse809 (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We could change the name of the subarticle and section to pharmacology? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I suppose that's an acceptable solution. Fuse809 (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll do the editing of the subsection on the antidepressant page if you can change the name of the article as I can't as I'm not an admin. Fuse809 (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be done. You can actually change many names. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see you beat me to the post but, um, "pharmacology of action of antidepressants" seems a little erroneous, why the "of action"? Is it a typo? Fuse809 (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes typo ... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The "Review studies" subsection on the antidepressant page seems a little redundant to me as it seems like the sort of information we should put in "Additional reading". Do you agree with me on this? Fuse809 (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No - if we don't use them, we ditch them. Most should be used as an inline reference for something Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cas's advice. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Bullen et al.
Would you interpret my comments w/r to what was being tested better, if you read Hajek's comments (in the Lancet) of the paper? He takes exactly the same line as both our secondary source, and me with regards to what the conclusion was "The key message is that in the context of minimum support, e­cigarettes are at least as effective as nicotine patches." - i had been looking for this response to the paper, since i do not have access to any paper databases and have to rely on physically going to the library, or asking authors for copies. Since i wanted to know what eventual responses the paper attracted. [call it an aquired habit from the climate change arena] :) --Kim D. Petersen 13:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a review article but a commentary and thus would not be deemed to be a high quality secondary source.I am sure more reviews will be coming out soon as will more RCTs.


 * This line I support "A 2013 randomized controlled trial found no difference in smoking cessation rates between e-cigarettes with nicotine, e-cigarettes without nicotine and traditional NRT patches." as it is an accurate summary of a review article.


 * Agree that it is a fascinating paper. If e-cigs with nicotine are truly as good as e-cigs without could this result in non nicotine containing e-cigs that are radically less expensive and more available? Why did everyone do so poorly in this trial? There was a lot of people that went missing from the trial. This causes concern. Looking at the study protocol it was designed to find a greater than 10% difference between e-cigs and patches not to verify that they are equal. thus we should not be saying they are equal (saying no difference was found though is slightly different).


 * Anyway need two more arms 1) nothing 2) nicotine patches plus placebo e-cigs. And need a larger trial. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know it is not a review article, i was contending your rather limited read of the original article, which stands in contrast to the way Hajek does.
 * As for "non nicotine containing e-cigs that are radically less expensive and more available" - this is a bit of a misunderstanding on your part with regards to what e-cigs really are.. and it is not an uncommon misunderstanding, so i'm not surprised.... The device (the e-cig) is not bound to the liquid it contains - so the pricing of the e-cig is not dependent on whether you use nic or non-nic liquid. The liquid is bought seperately, either in cartomizers (containers already filled), or as bottles used to fill up tanks (or cartomizers). Thus it is up to the customer to chose whether or not they will use nic or non-nic.
 * Personal commentary on the non-nic route: It is very likely (imho) that the mere mimic factor of e-cigarettes is the most important part of their efficacy, especially considering the demographics of the remaining smokers (who typically are those who've already tried to quit several times, and who've tried various means to do so), ie. that the nic addiction is only one side of the story. (ie. you need things between your fingers, seeing the smoke/vapor, the feel, etc etc.).
 * Yeah, it might be better to have a "cold-turkey" population in another multipronged trial, but i think it will be difficult because of the above.--Kim D. Petersen 14:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * E-cigs with nicotine are not available in many countries. This makes them expensive for many people globally. If you need to figure out how to import it the price goes up. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For most of the EU, because of the open market, there is no problems getting nic liquid, and the price doesn't rise - in fact in most cases buying it (from good sources) on the internet is usually cheaper than buying it locally. And if i read the table on Legal status correct, then nicotine liquid is available for most people. So what you point out is only correct for a very limited audience. And i would content that, in most cases, it is still cheaper than smoking :) --Kim D. Petersen 16:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not findable here in Canada. In the developing world of course cigs are cheap. But generally you are correct for the developed world. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, i did a little query of this, and you are actually incorrect about your own country :) E-cigs with and without nicotine are sold there - it appears that the legal status is unclear. Health Canada has made a statement about it being a drug, but by their own definition it isn't.... and there is no law regulating it. So rather confusing to me - but there are both canadian online shops as well as physical e-cig stores.... As for the developing world - even there e-cigs are rising in usage, e-cigs are also cheap there - just as the cigs are. --Kim D. Petersen 21:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * New review found, could you take a look? Seems to support the controlled statement, but i'd like some input on the paper. Please check further because the paper has other information that might be pertinent in other sections :) Thanks. --Kim D. Petersen 20:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Will do. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Move request for Neuro-Behçet's disease
Can you please move Neuro-behcet disease to Neuro-Behçet's disease (as in PMID 19161910 or PMID 19344307‎) with the page history and redirect the other accordingly. Reason: Use of special characters. I do not think that there would be any issue with the move.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 14:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How can I get the rights to do such things directly by myself?  D ip ta ns hu Talk 11:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Most moves can be made by anyone. If the page one wishes to move it to already exists however you need to be an admin to delete the target page. WP:RFA is a little tough. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of going through administrators' reading list and other related pages. Will let you know after I am done with it.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 10:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Image Copyright
Hi, I've been trying to help Wikipedia by adding images of tablets/capsules of the different medications but I'm having trouble with the copyright status of these images as I'm not the one that took them, they're ones available at either DailyMed, Medscape or Drugs.com. I don't know how to write them up on the file upload form. I know you're not a lawyer but I thought as an admin you might have some idea, or at least some idea of who to direct me to. Fuse809 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you either need to get written release from the owners of the images in question agreeing to license them under CC BY SA. Or you need to take images yourself. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, step 1 is to figure out the copyright status of the images by looking at the web pages they appear on, if that is possible. They might already have a copyright that is suitable.  But if you can't find any copyright statement, the default is that we can't use them without explicit permission. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Chol
I took another try at getting something into the Hypercholesterolemia article about The China Study. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Hill&#39;s Angel (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The China Study being a popular press book is not really a reliable source for medical content. If may be of social and cultural significance I do not know. The reason why many heart attacks occur in those with normal cholesterol is that cholesterol levels are not a great marker of CVD risk. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that The China Study is not a reliable source BECAUSE it was published by the popular press? It seems to me that a book could be published by the popular press AND be a reliable source of medical information. Hill&#39;s Angel (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes that is consensus here WP:MEDMOS. The pop press may be used or social and culture aspects of disease but not medical ones. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)