User talk:Doc James/Archive 63

Metformin
Hi Doc,

Thanks for your help with the Saxagliptin article, and with the other gliptin articles which I assume you reviewed as well.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but the most recent meta analyses I was able to find indicate no CV benefit for metformin or one that is just barely statistically significant and only in monotherapy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22517929 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22509138 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21205121.

I realize that I'm splitting hairs here over a second tier drug. But am aiming for consistency. Best Formerly 98 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes realize that there has been some backpedaling with respect to the mortality benefits of metformin. We have this 2012 AHRQ systematic review were metformin is "associated with lower all cause and cardiovascular mortality" in the conclusions. At least when compared with sulfonylureas  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure sulfonylureas are the best comparator, as they have been suspected of increasing CV mortality at least since I worked in the diabetes area in the early 1990s. Not sure if that suspicion has waned. Back then it was attributed to their property of increasing hyperinsulinemia, which was part of what set off the search for insulin sensitizers (some of which have been even worse). (ADDED NOTE: a quick pubmed search for meta analyses on "sulfonylureas cardiovascular" seems to point to an increase in CV risk relative to placebo)


 * I guess my point is just that since none or almost none of the anti hyperglycemia drugs reduces CV mortality, we should adopt common language and not leave the impression that particular agents are uniquely lacking in CV benefits.


 * What would you like to do here? I'd vote for at least adding the phrase that "few if any other anti hyperglycemic drugs improve CV outcomes". Of course I'll have to run down the references for this. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What about insulin? Do we have a ref that makes this statement? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't find anything reliable on that. Maybe hard to put patients on any sort of placebo treatment for as long as it takes to do a CV outcomes trial, and if you use a drug comparator you don't get an absolute answer. Hyperinsulinemia arising from endogenous insulin release in response to insulin resistance is certianly predictive of CV disease, but that's a little different. Formerly 98 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files
Some of the files that you have uploaded may be unfree. See Possibly unfree files/2014 March 8 for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume that you mean this one  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Hello, You may want to read this to better understand what is going on with that arbitrator. Although it is from 2008, but he's still the same man. Maybe it is not so obvious from his actions on Wiki, but emails I got from him is a clear indication that nothing has changed. Best wishes.76.126.142.57 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: twice (fecal occult blood entry)
Greetings -

No copyright issue here.

Pinnacle BioLabs is my company. Noticed on the talk page of fecal occult blood in 2 separate places users wanted gFOBT image gone and the hi res fit test seems to fit the bill.

Thanks for dropping me a line. Feel free to continue the dialogue.

CBalentine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbalentine (talk • contribs) 00:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. Two things:
 * The watermark needs removing
 * You must send an email to WP:OTRS.
 * Than we can get things straightened out.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

image
Send an email giving the image license to wiki when it was uploaded and requested by wiki. I noticed you made some other revisions to the page as well, most importantly of which was The American College of Gastroenterology has recommended the abandoning of gFOBT testing as a Colorectal Cancer Screening tool, in favor of the Fecal Immunochemical Test. This statement was cited, etc. I think given that it is colorectal cancer awareness month, and given the saturation of the topic - and as many people that are in search of answers and turn to wiki - its a bit of an injustice to have an image representative of a methodology that should be non-existent as a modality for CRC screening.

Would you mind reverting - and I'll have someone give the image a crop?

Many thanks.

(also, I can't seem to sign this properly so feel free to reach me at cbalentine@pblabs.com)

Cbalentine (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)CBalentine
 * Will look thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have added "The American College of Gastroenterology has recommended the abandoning of gFOBT testing as a colorectal cancer screening tool, in favor of the fecal immunochemical test. "
 * gFOBT is still used in much of the world as even though it is not as good, it costs less and is better than nothing. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Our statement here
http://febrileseizures.org.uk/forums/topic/wikipedias-factual-inaccuracies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.37.5 (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will keep an eye on that page. If you can define what is wrong with Wikipedia's content using proper sources than we can correct it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tips
Thanks for the editing tips...I didn't realize there was was an easy built-in template. I'll do that going forward. I appreciate your work on here. Grillo7 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let me know if you have further questions :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Eclampsia
Thank you, Doc James. I also made a few changes to the article content to make it less like a treatment protocol for clinicians. And I found a few updated references, too. Some time this week I plan to do a rewrite in honor of International Woman's Day since it is one of the oldest diseases specific to women. Have a nice day. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you bring it to GA would be happy to add it to the translation list :-) Otherwise we should at least translate the lead as part of the group of simplified articles we are translating. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why u've removed my input
Hello James I'm sorry but I don't understand why you have deleted my input. Couldn't you put a special model for requesting more reliable sources instead?

Most of the sources in the article are NOT review articles.

So I don't understand why you've deleted my (small) input and not the others? --Dernier Siècle (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes the rest of the sources need to be replaced by review articles. Adding more primary sources makes this harder. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey of wikipedians background
Hi Doc James, This thread is regarding your post at the project medicine page. I chose not to comment there in order to minimize the impact of my comment on your study; however, I do have a question/comment, I hope you don't mind me posting it here?

The project medicine page where you posted your rfc is frequented by the 274 editors who made more than 250 edits to medical articles in 2013. According to the proposal, those are the same editors who will be the subjects of the study. Do you see this overlap as a confound/source of bias? Survey-based studies inherently suffer from social desirability bias and it seems that asking the future subjects to review the proposal (which indicates the desired outcome) greatly compounds this potential bias. In my opinion, this study would be more robust if the future respondents were blind to these objectives and hypotheses and simply asked for demographic information without providing them any context with which to establish what the desirable outcome is. I comment because I note that a publication in JMIR, or PLoS medicine is the goal and the issue of bias that I raise here would be a major concern if I were asked to review. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on your proposed study! Puhlaa (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes excellent points. This could potentially affect the answer for the English group. I already know the professional background of many of the English group though. I do not think people will misrepresent themselves. Many of us (like both yourself and myself) state our professional credentials on our user page.
 * The majority (160) of the group is from non English languages and thus this should not affected them. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply; I look forward to reading the study one day! Best of luck with your research. Puhlaa (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Adverse effects of FQs
A consensus was reached to merge this article into Quinolones. I'm not familiar with the process here and don't know what needs to be done next. From my humble POV, all of the information from the Adverse Events article that is noteworthy and properly sources has already been incorporated in the Quinolones article.

Is there something I need to do here to wrap this process up?

Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikitravel
Wikitravel is much better on some articles than Wikivoyage. It doesn't matter if it is for profit or not, that is not a valid reason to prefer one source over another. Rather, the quality of the source is important. Also, Wikivoyage has some very poor editors who continue to avoid improvement of articles. Therefore, the idea that Wikivoyage is somehow superior by definition is sadly mistaken. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. The content used to be the same. The community and the content moved to WV. Thus yes the content at WV developes well that at WT has not been. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Crohn's disease
Hey Jmh, if you're interested, I'd like to work with you to try and get Crohn's to FA after Jfdwolff finishes the GA review of psoriasis. I imagine it's probably fairly close to achieving that FA status. Let me know if you're interested. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It needs a good solid updating. Am willing to help but my primary effort is going into just improving leads of articles for translation into other languages as possible per here . Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, let's put that on hold. I think I'm going to work on Bipolar disorder first. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Autism
Hi DocJames, I wanted to know because, in May 2013 (last year), the DSM-IV revised to its current manual DSM 5 and has consolidated Asperger's, PDD-NOS, and Autism into one label: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Do you think it's worth mentioning in the lead? Also the hatnote on top uses the word "pervasive developmental disorders" but it is no longer recognized as the diagnostic term for ASD. I think it needs to be revised. See here: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Autism%20Spectrum%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf ATC. Talk 04:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:SandyGeorgia has the most expertise with that article. It appears the DSM5 includes ASD as a "neurodevelopmental disorder" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct and yes, I brought this to SandyGeorgia's attention. She or he has not responded. If the user doesn't reply do you know anyone else that I could connect with? ATC . Talk 00:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hempseed oil on Dermatitis page
OK. I can see the logic behind using review articles. And I can see the sense in avoiding primary sources. However, there remains a problem. A clinical trial (which, by the way, was found using TRIP database) is evidence. Therefore, to continue saying "There is no evidence..." in the face of said evidence, becomes a bald faced lie. May I suggest we simply remove the words "hempseed oil" from this section since there really is evidence. Even if we don't like the form of the evidence or what it says. After a life long experiment with the treatment of dermatitis I can tell you that hempseed oil is the only natural medicine which has made any significant impact on my symptoms of my particular strain of dermatitis. That anecdotal evidence can never be used as the basis for medical advice to the public, but I can not ignore it, and I can not sit idly by while someone tries to tell me "There is no evidence..." --Livepsycle (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes good point. I have changed no evidence, to insufficient evidence. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Congratulation
Thanks for the message and congratulation. I'm surprised to know that I've made the highest edits to medical content on Arabic Wikipedia! because the number of my edits as well as my activity level aren't that high! I guess it reflects the need for more work on Arabic Wikipedia. Definitely, I'm interested to help as much as I can. I had quick look at links you provided, not sure exactly what I'm suppose to do but well look at it again and well message you if I've questions.--Ffraih (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Great to have you join us :-) Instructions on how to add articles are here Feel free to email me and I can put you into contact with the translating team. Also if you see articles that are already good in Arabic please mark the table telling us not to translate them.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Goodpasture's syndrome
Hi, James. I think the page Goodpasture's syndrome should be moved to Goodpasture syndrome as this is the name given in the ICD-10. Thoughts? I would ordinarily ask this question on the page's talk page but seeing how in my experience a reply usually takes weeks to be received I thought I might as well get to the chase. Fuse809 (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Amen
I think I restored your edits properly. Please check, I am signing off soon. I was reverting an earlier edit. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks. ADD is simply an old term for ADHD. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Dental implant
Thank for the changes and notes on GA review. With respect to removing sections that are not in MEDMOS, I'll combine types and composition into the history section. Is the consenus not to include any subsections? For instance, under Risk and complications, we would prefer I remove all the subheadings and convert to a series of paragraphs. Ian Furst (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No the only section that I think needs removing is the "see also" section. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

does cite isbn cause the same hell for translation? Should I be replacing those too? Ian Furst (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OMG, just finished removing all the cite isbn's and cite pmid's. That is brutal and boring.  If you need another $200 to get the bot done tell me where to direct the donation.  Never again. Ian Furst (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I know it is horrible doing it manually. We need a bot. Vote support on the WP:MED page and we will get there :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Question on porting templates to other languages
Is there any reason that the template annotated image 4 wouldn't work correctly (i.e., just annotate text on images in the corresponding language) on other language wikis if I just copied/pasted the code into the corresponding template name on non-English wikis? Not sure if you know the answer to this, but you're probably the best person to ask.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 03:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tried to get big templates to work in other languages. I have not had success. Let me know if you figure out how. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

cite pmid templates
I should be able to create a bot to substitute the above templates. No monetary award necessary :-) However since these edits will be made on widely read and edited pages, I think we need to be extra careful to make sure that the edits comply with WP:CITEVAR. I also agree that the citations should be entered on one line.  The vertical format is appropriate for cite pmid but not cite journal.  The vertical format fragments the wikitext making it a pain to scroll through and much more difficult to read.  For a similar reason, I prefer a single author parameter in preference to verbose "first1, last1, first2, last2" parameters. Boghog (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes happy with all of that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Top medical editors
Thanks for that msg James. Somewhat depressing to think that my level of wiki activity earns me this place, because I don't feel I work very hard at all. Perhaps I was working more consistently at the beginning of 2013. We really do need more editors... Anyway, I have made a resolution to try out the collaboration with journals thing and if it works out to stop publishing off-wiki. I much prefer writing Wikipedia, because of the sense of collaboration. The delay is due to several half finished papers in the pipe line ... 2 at peer review and the rest in various stages of completion. I am not starting any more, so eventually I will be focusing more on wiki, and focusing on producing a few very high quality articles rather than haphazard editing. Ian and I have toothache at GA currently, but still would need a fair bit of work before being fit for a journal. Maybe aphthous stomatitis is more ready for that. Lesion ( talk ) 22:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes we are few. Wonderful to hear you are going to pick up the pass. We at JMIR Wiki Reviews look forwards to your papers. First few are on the house :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for passing the barnstar to me too. I too feel surprised that the level of work that I have put in is not much and yet I get into the top 10. Can you tell me where to find the list? Do you have any suggestions based on which we could motivate more users in contribution to medical articles?  D ip ta ns hu Talk 10:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have not published the list yet. I guess I could soon :-) There was 112 people in English who made more than 250 edits to a medical article in 2013 and 160 people in other languages.
 * How to motivate more people to seriously contribute to medical content? That is a great question. We have done a bunch of things with limited success. The greatest success I have had was bringing all these translators on board with respect to . Convincing them to directly edit Wikipedia has only been successful with a few people though. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is here WikiProject_Medicine/Stats/Top_English_medical_editors_2013 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you incorporate this link some place in WP:MED as this list of 114 users may prove useful for many seeking assistance in this field.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you suitably add before name of each of the users on that page so that it renders as  and makes it further useful. Could not think of a simple method to do it and I myself did not take up the task since I did not wish to do it manually.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 11:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be nice. Not sure how to do it in an automated manner either. Will think on it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Did it manually.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 13:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing, conduct re: QG RfC
Hi Doc James,

May I clarify an issue at the QG RfC? The following isn't a matter of "QuackGuru is sometimes difficult, but he's right about stuff".


 * If Smith publishes a finding, and a few years later Jones repeats the finding and sources it to Smith, proper protocol is to cite Smith. Right?


 * If multiple editors agree to cite Smith, and "Editor: John Doe" keeps insisting Jones is better because Jones is more recent, John Doe is mistaken both in substance and process. Right?

That's what's going on in this thread, which is part of the evidence submitted. (Smith and Jones, here, being White '04 and Adama '11 respectively)

I know you looked at this, because of your comment here, yet all you say in that comment is basically, "hey, he added Jones, what's the big deal". But it's poor conduct (both on substance and process). Do you disagree?

I'm not trying to get you to agree with all of the evidence submitted; I agree some of it is outdated and/or poorly presented. But I've yet to hear you acknowledge the validity of a single piece of evidence in that RfC. regards, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 03:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Proper protocol is to cite Jones here at Wikipedia as presumable Jones analysed Smith as well as other stuff.
 * If multiple people are disagreeing next step is a RfC to bring in more viewpoints to build consensus. If none of the editors are doing this than no one is following process. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Doc, it was just for the one finding, 5 in 10^6 SAE's, full stop. In that case you cite Smith, the source for the finding.  At least in my world.  Are there different standards in medical journals than in basic science journals?  (And no, the "if" you mention above was not the case, cf. below.)  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 08:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You get this, right? Otherwise people would just write articles mentioning a lot of important discoveries in passing, and then get cited -- for those findings per se, not any new analysis -- instead of the original sources, just because "recent".  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI)

Positions are Yet somehow you lumped MrBill3 into the support for a 2004 paper which is not at all clear per your last statement in this section  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the use of a 2004 paper: Middle 8, A1candidate, Herbxue (a WP:SPA), Mallexikon
 * Question the use of a 2004 paper: QG and MrBill3


 * Huh? MrBill3 totally supported White 2004 (per MEDRS exceptions for older reviews in areas with relatively few reviews) . He also was none too happy about QG's conduct on talk pages: .  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 08:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at this bit "I think the "few reviews are being published" exception is to allow a 5 year plus review when there is not a more recent one, or a more recent one that is comparable available. Why would it be appropriate to use a 10 year old review when there is one that is from this year and one that is from two years ago? That you have shown seven reviews from 2010 to the present pretty much negates the idea that few reviews are being published. But again the relaxing of the 5 year rule IMO is to allow use of a older study when there is not a more current one available." It appears that he then changed his position to "I agree that if Adams is citing a number from White it should be sourced to White. With that change, as the numbers are in the article, have we reached consensus." Still were is the RfC to bring wider input to this decision? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re RfC/A, nobody asked for one -- and how does that excuse IDHT? Every time an editor holds up a discussion with IDHT, the solution is an RfC/A?  Try being on the receiving end of QG's shenagigans, like Guy/JzG was, and see how long that theory holds up.  The fact is, I would have welcomed QG asking for one, hell, doing anything to move the conversation forward, instead of going in circles, acting like answers to his objections had never been given (aka IDHT).  You keep shifting from a consideration of conduct to content; as much as you'd prefer this to be an RfC/A, that's not the light in which to consider the evidence. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 14:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re why the older review, because it had a fact -- a rate for SAE's -- that I thought was germaine, and the older review is the original source. Re other reviews, there's considerable heterogeneity in what they examined; see thread. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI)
 * It is time you drop the stick in move on. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with mainspace edits?
Hi, one more thing re Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). I've had little if any interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You made unsupported claims and when called on it did not withdraw them or provide support for them. Most of the evidence you provided was ancient. You are right that QG was outnumbered by a number of accounts; however, many of these mostly or only edit acupuncture articles. Much of what he does is support by guidelines and thus by consensus. A small local consensus does not trump a community wide consensus. It is unfortunate that no one has tried a RfC regarding content to bring more editors to the issues. I fault User:QuackGuru the same amount as others involved. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you already made your objections to the RfC clear. That's not what I just asked you.  (hence a separate section) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 12:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than a RfC user there should be a RfC content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So, are you going answer my question?  Let me try that again:  "Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly?  (You never did say, and neither did jps!)  What have we done that's that bad?  Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are.  I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too!"  Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 14:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You see that is the thing. I consider your multiple attempts across multiple pages to ban QG bad enough. You need to drop the stick. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is the dif were QG added "5 in 10^6 SAE"? Or diffs because you make it sound like he did it multiple times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be this (which you earlier posted to the RfC/U talk page). --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 14:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that we are speaking different languages. There was a statement that QC added "5 in 10^6 SAE", this dif added "5 per one million"  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Gah. You got to be kidding. You have been taking up the time of every edit who had issues with you? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Epidemiological data
Hi Doc. For epidemiological data, do you think it's appropriate to use the WorldHealthRankings website, rather than secondary sources? My concern here is that it's difficult to find up-to-date epidemiological data in secondary sources. Your advice would be much appreciated. I probably should have asked your advice before working on this section of the article, but the previous version had no supporting references at all. Thanks, Alan Merrit (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the world cancer report? I have WHO data as well. Would not use the source you mention. Here is the 2008 WCR 2014 is out but not sure how to get access.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. The last few times I checked the WHO website, the data was quite old. I'll have another look though. I'll check out the world cancer report ASAP too. Cheers, Alan Merrit (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I checked the WHO website, and the most recent "Persons, all ages" death and DALY estimates there is 2004.  I don't have access to the 2014 World Cancer Report right now, but will see if I can get it through work.  Cheers, Alan Merrit (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Great let me know if you can get a copy. If looks like it would be very useful for updating much of Wikipedia. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Efforts needed for cross-language merging of article
Hello, Doc James, I am here to ask for your help in cross-wiki efforts.

I noticed that you have merged the article Ischaemic heart disease into Coronary artery disease. However, Wikidata is not updated and also I have decided to fix this issue and also removing interwiki links from other Wikipedias which cause confusion with Wikidata. Here are what I have done as of now (rather tiring):


 * 1) Merged zh:缺血性心臟病 (corresponds with "Ischaemic") into zh:冠狀動脈性心臟病 (see here)
 * 2) Updated zh:Talk:冠狀動脈性心臟病
 * 3) Tried to merge Q1444550 into Q844935 (see my contributions to Wikidata)
 * One of them is and

I would like to ask for your help to start cross-language efforts in merging articles listed here. Also, ru:Ишемическая болезнь сердца, which corresponds with "Ischaemic", is a featured article. Thus ru:Коронарная недостаточность (corresponds with "Coronory") should be merged into the FA instead.

I am not active on all language editions of Wikipedias, thus merging efforts are required. HYH.124 (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not used Wikidata much. Not sure how to do this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can actually choose to redirect shorter articles to longer articles, but I fear the local community. I will try to do this on my own. HYH.124 (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Dabigatran
i agree with removing the section about trials;

but why was Pharmacovigilance removed? readers should know there is a discussion in the medical community about bleedings by dabigatran, probably caused by discontinuation through adverse effects (gastric upset), switching from warfarin to dabigatran (massive in the US), dosing errors in renal patients, use by older patients, of label uses (important in the US) and overconsumption of aspirin, specifically in the US, not in Europe.

in uses 1.3 valvular atrial fibrillation should be a valvular atrial fibrillation.

and could i put of label uses to the section uses 1,4 (because of his importance )--Truebreath (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Pharmacovigilance section was hidden in this edit by User:Seppi333. I will look into it in a bit. I just moved it to the talk page for discussion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by: in uses 1.3 valvular atrial fibrillation should be a valvular atrial fibrillation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)