User talk:Doc James/Archive 64

Fluoxetine
I made some edits to the part of this article dealing with efficacy in mild to moderate depression. Knowing that you are a skeptic on this subject, I thought you would be a good person to look this over for balance. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will take a look :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cardiopoietic Stem Cell Therapy edit
- I see several primary article cited throughout the page - why have these not been removed as well? - The majority of the content I added was related to recent clinical trials, and thus have yet to be included in secondary articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijnijnokm (talk • contribs) 05:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes the primary sources should be removed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with adding content
I have currently logged into your TWB account and I do not know where is the "manual delivery" section. Perhaps a screenshoot or you can explain it to me? HYH.124 (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. I have transferred the Chinese translation of Diabetes mellitus type 2 and am currently wikifying the article. HYH.124 (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wonderful :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The translators are over-reliant on Google Translate, causing the prose to be not as good. Now I even have to copy edit the entire article... HYH.124 (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hum. They should not be using Google translate. Let me check on this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure, but when reviewing and reading the article, I made use of Google Translate and found that most results tally. It seems like the work was completed hastily. HYH.124 (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay we are speaking with the translator in question. Sorry about this. Let us know if you find more issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Heart sounds
I was looking for heart sounds and came across this file of your heart. Were you in bigeminy or something? It ends OK but the beginning doesn't sound too good. Thanks for putting it up. Will use for a video. Ian Furst (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a split S2 I think. Will see about uploading a longer version. Was / still am a bit of an extreme athlete and thus I guess my heart sounds are not completely normal.   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you get a good long recording (or of abnormals) I've got a program that will take out the background noise pretty well just let me know. You must not sleep or something - busy guy. Ian Furst (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be excellent. I have had huge issues with the format that my stethoscope gives. Can you work on this one  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploaded a cleaner version of the file. That one didn't have much noise in it. I removed what noise was there and normalized it but I didn't want to mess with the pitch of it. Let me know if there's something else with it that would make it more life-like. To me it sounds too high pitched/tinny but the last time I heard croup was 15 years ago. Also any other files you think could do with noise reduction. It's pretty simple. Ian Furst (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

List of incurable diseases/ conditions
Hi DocJames I would like to start a page on incurabale diseases, but I need some guidance. According to this page, there is no such list. Ihave a number of questions:
 * 1. where there are a number of variants of a disease, should all be listed? Eg: diabetes or diabetes, type I and diabetes type II
 * 1a. Are there any diseases with fatal and non-fatal variants/ strains? (in which case the question above becomes crucial)
 * 2. What to call such a page: for such a list is the term "diseases" wide enough to cover "disorders", as in the example I cited above? I consulted this.
 * 3. Besides separating it into diseases, disorders, etc, I would like to also add a second column indicating whether it is life-threatening. But I guess there is no black/ white clear line here, as even AIDS can now be managed for decades.
 * 3a. Might also be valuabe to be able to add a column on the status indicating whether it is transmissible/ contagious.
 * 4. A separate column for alternative names of in backets with the main name (Tay–Sachs, GM2 gangliosidosis or hexosaminidase)?
 * 5. what to do with things that are not diseases, such as permanent injuries (spinal cord injury; effects of a stroke etc), and conditions (albinism etc).
 * Your help would be most appreciated. Or is there a forum where I should raise this? Best regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not really see the point of such as list. There are just to many. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

From WikiCorrect-Health
Hi Doc, Thanks for your note and the links. We typically stay away from editing the pages to avoid conflict of interests unless there is no response from the main contributors. (We get paid for consulting and training we provide hospitals, universities and pharma companies on how to use Wikipedia ethically and also legally). We get in touch with experts like you if a healthcare related page needs correction. So you might not see us editing pages. Certainly familiar with the links you have sent us.

The reason we formed the group is to provide a bridge to the entities to ETHICALLY fix legitimate errors on healthcare pages. As you know hospitals and companies do not get involved in providing the wealth of information they have about some major topics, notably pharmaceutical products, fearing backlash. Some are paying unknown agencies to promote marketing material, which is not good for the Wikipedia community. Will be glad to work with you and other docs in the community. Hope to meet you soon in person soon at a conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrect-Health (talk • contribs) 12:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC) --WikiCorrect-Health (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hum. How many of you are using this account? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

We are a team of 5 at this point. If you think we should use individual accounts, please let us know. Again we are not planning on editing pages unless something very important pops up.--WikiCorrect-Health (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes you should use separate accounts. And what do you mean "unless something very important pops up"? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ref-tag mania
James, you mentioned this a while ago in relation to medical articles. Want a good example of the phenomenon more generally? Celeste Buckingham. Jeesh. Tony  (talk)  09:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I hide a lot of mine as can be seen in the lead here Rift_Valley_fever. This prevents people from adding "citation needed" tags to the lead and keeps confusion from occurring when content is moved around. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice. Do you explain this technique elsewhere for editors at large? I think it should be promulgated. Tony   (talk)  10:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No I have not. Would be happy to see if promoted further. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Hookworm vaccine/16187734 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hookworm vaccine/16187734 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hookworm vaccine/16187734 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 12:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Currently the WMF has signed contracts with cellphone companies to give free Wikipedia access to 750 million people. This means that all these people can access Wikipedia freely but cannot access the sources our content is based on freely. We could host compatible sources right on Wikipedia and change this. Another benefit is that it could potentially increase the number of people who can edit Wikipedia by 750 million as they would than have sources. By the way the Cochrane collaboration is thinking of licensing some of their content under an open license so that this could occur. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

elephantiasis
Hi James,

I see you've made some changes to the elephantiasis page, having it redirect to lymphatic filarisis. If you have time, would you mind reverting these changes? Elephantiasis is an umbrella term that encompasses all forms of tropical lymphedema -- it does not specifically refer to lymphatic filarisis. A quick google scholar search will demonstrate this. Ernest Price, who discovered podoconiosis would frequently refer to that disease entity as "non-filarial elephantiasis." It makes sense etymologically as well -- the word elephantiasis describes the syndrome not the etiology.

Thanks, Chase Furorimpius (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We could have a disambig page the links to both. Discusses both diseases in full together does not make sense especially since we have an article on podoconiosis. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Podoconiosis is not refered to as elephantiasis but as non-filarial elephantiasis. Will redirect this term. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is still lymphoma, non-filarial elephantiasis is still elephantiasis. Elephantiasis is a syndrome.  The etiology of elephantiasis can be filarial or non-filarial. Furorimpius (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Replaced by a disambig so that now we have a disambig, we have the article on podoconiosis and we have the article on lymphatic filariasis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I edited the disambig to be a little more clear.Furorimpius (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. Hopefully this is a reasonable compromise. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

breast cancer wikipedia
Hello,

I recently made an edit to the "breast cancer" wikipedia page by describing the GATA-3 transcription factor in the "transcription factor" section. My contributions were deleted. Can you please explain why my contributions were deleted? The GATA-3 transcription factor is among the most important transcription factors in breast cancer and yet the section discusses the NFAT transcription factor only. Please advise.

Best, Hosein Kouros-Mehr, MD, PhD kouros.mehr@gmail.com Hkouros (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDRS we use secondary sources. Not all the content you added was deleted as you can see here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Subject recruitment
Hey Doc James,

I just saw link. Sadly, Subject_Recruitment_Approvals_Group is a dead project. We have a nearly identical process alive on meta through m:RCom. If you're interested, you could move your current proposal to link and ping me to get the process moving. The process (both the old SRAG and new RCom stuff) is geared more towards non-Wikipedians who want to run studies on Wikipedia, so it's really up to you. --EpochFail (talk &bull; contribs) 14:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

GA for Down syndrome
What happened? Had no updates in a while.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 17:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to be little interest in doing a GA review of it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Down syndrome
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Down syndrome 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 Vinethemonkey -- 18:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis Treatments
There are no citations for treatments. Medical intervention is well documented in detail with pharmacological options. My concern is that the wiki page is biomedically biased, only mentioning therapeutic treatment nonspecifically. I'd like to shift some of the focus to a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial approach. A strictly biomedical explanation does not reflect all common treatment for patients with this disease. If I had MS and came to this wikipedia page, would I understand the options for treatments that are available to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwhit030 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We have Management_of_multiple_sclerosis and Multiple_sclerosis Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS)
Hi, James. I've posed a question on FAS's talk page, basically saying I think we should standardise the language in the article as either American or British (I'm in favour of American as the title, is already in American English (fetal vs foetal) and at least three words in the article are already spelt this way; see the talk page for these examples) English and stick with it, like we usually do with articles. Something tells me that this topic will go ignored for a long period of time if I just leave it on the talk page and don't bring it to an admin's attention. The article was once a GA (albeit I think this might be an abuse of power) and I think, naturally, we should be moving towards this again and this seems like a logical next step. Fuse809 (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

By making it official I mean adding this American English to the talk page. Fuse809 (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I only speak and write Canadian :-) I am happy with whichever. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Down syndrome
The article Down syndrome you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Down syndrome for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vinethemonkey -- 05:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Congrats James.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 05:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I will expand on that research section. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And a congratulations to you! Good job on getting another article to good status! VINETHEMONKEY 04:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Vinethemonkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinethemonkey (talk • contribs)
 * I would also like to note that, if you have any more nominations, you could contact me at my talk page. I'll attend to it! VINETHEMONKEY 05:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Vinethemonkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinethemonkey (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors (testing)

 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaria vaccine: whole organism vaccine reported in: Science Sept. 2013,
Hey Doc,

I came across this, and was going to add something about it to the article Malaria vaccine. Most of the text there appears to be yours, so I thought I'd run it by you before I 'doctor' up the article. Is it worth commenting on in the article? It's IV administration only, so nobody can get too excited, yet.

Article title: Protection Against Malaria by Intravenous Immunization with a Nonreplicating Sporozoite Vaccine, Robert A. Seder, et. al.

Sbalfour (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean . It is a phase one trial. Is there a review commenting on it yet? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Headings
hi JMH649, Please remove ONLY the content that has needed correction. Removing an entire edit is frustrating and discourages contributors. This is a topic that is being overly protected apparently quite ferociously! Id like my contribution reverted back again with only the part you feel was not acceptable removed. WikiShares (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There was issues with all your additions. For example you wrote that Israel had discontinued fluoridation when it has not. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The article may be featured but it is written horribly. Its repetitive and missing key information and recent changes. Please only revert errors or significant changes to the article. This is merely an addition of types of fluoride. If you like move it lower. But the top of the article is too large. It is only meant to be a summary so the index can show on the screen and let viewers choose among topics. It is written like a rant or bad sales page quite frankly. WikiShares (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the content you are trying to add is already there. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim, Thanks for the tip. I didn't know there were limits to revisions. Thanks. It said specifically over the top of the article that I COULD revert your reversion. Had it not I would have hesitated. I am not sure I did any revisions beside that. Can you please specify what you say were the other two revisions. I think the article needs significant cleaning up. And I think the article is dated, and reads like a promotion of old 1999 and beyond info. WikiShares (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice
Jim - all efforts made to include new data on the topic water fluoridation have been thwarted fully. Not partially. Just instant speedy reversions without regard for new info readers are entitled to. My time was exhaustive in simply trying to contribute even a few things. It seems you have a true devotion to science and are fervent in your effort to keep off minority opinion. However studies are changing as is policy in entire nations. That information was reverted repeatedly. It was improper to do so. Wiki is now a large collaboration and if errors are made, it would have been proper to assist in adding the info not removing it.

Most notably your engaging in determining what scientific studies you deem acceptable. Acting as judge and jury on information. I understand you act in some capacity as an advisor at wiki, but you may have not realized you did not follow the Verifiability Policy.

That is what makes wiki great.. that information may be included from various sources if credibility in their field and or institution exists. In the case of the Anna Choi study at Harvard School of Public Health, as supported and cited by the school itself, Fox news, and the Huffington Post, to name a few, media sources not judging them, but citing them, it is verifiable as a credible source. The accuracy is not for you to determine. That is the key point that you seemed to have overridden in not allowing that study to be listed on the page.

I have began a discussion on the admin notice board. I cited the imposition of personal opinion vs the Verifiability Policy. This is the link to the page it is listed on.

Additionally as an intelligent person which you clearly are, it is important to show some sensitivity, and I have tried repeatedly to remove the dated comments referencing "the poor". It is highly insulting and should be reworded. That too in haste was reverted.

Please only revert what is an error, that is welcome. And I appreciate your efforts to explain the edit war. I have been very careful not to war... but that doesn't mean a key topic must remain in the eyes of the world in decades past. WikiShares (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All you need to do is get consensus on the talk page first. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This User:WikiCorrect-Health editor...
This so-called disinterested party, WikiCorrect-Health, keeps inserting gobs of promotional crud about IDC in the Accenture article, and elsewhere. When I went to investigate, I saw that you had already made inquiries. I have no interest in Accenture other than wanting to keep a casual eye on it, because they are the contractor for Obamacare now (Accenture ACN common was down > 5% on Friday, eek, casual aside).

I'm not an Obamacare fan, but it is very important that Wikipedia not have any, even peripherally, negative impact on anything pertaining to sign-up's, in my humble opinion. Anyway, WikiCorrect-Health keeps inserting their IDC crud in the Accenture article and other editors revert it. Can anything be done?--FeralOink (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which article? Yes this account will likely be banned as it is being used by a bunch of users. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Fluoxetine
I broke the rules here and undid your reversion of my edit. I did so believing that your reversion was based on a simple misunderstanding, it is not my intent to edit war. If you still disagree after reading my edit summary, please revert back and let me know what I need to do to fix this. Thanks

Also, I"d like to apologize if my edit description for re-adding the anxiety disorders was unnecessarily provocative. To be honest, I was surprised to see all mention of several approved indications for the drug removed from the article over a sourcing issue, when the approval itself could be viewed as representing a secondary source. My thought was that this situation was a little different from one in which weak sources are used to support fringe claims. Formerly 98 (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. I see were it supports it now. Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Aspirin lead
Hi, James. Yet again I feel the need to ask for your opinion; on the aspirin page there is a sentence in the lead (the one on the endogenous production of salicylates) that I think just doesn't fit into the lead very well and I felt I should ask whether or not I should feel free to remove it (don't worry I have posted this question on the talk page, I'm asking you as I expect this question will take days for anyone to actually even notice it and I think this, "Good article" deserves more attention than this). One of the reasons for this request is that the article it references isn't a review article and is rather original research, hence prohibited by WP:MEDMOS. Fuse809 (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A primary source. Thus yes remove. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

German acupuncture trials
So what is going on now with QG at German acupuncture trials is exactly what drove Mallexikon and Middle8 to file the RFCU on him. Crazy-making, ax-grindy, edits and discussion, ignoring the long and careful discussion we had, which he didn't participate in, even though he was editing the article all through it. argh. I don't know if you recognize me from times when we have crossed paths, but i stick strongly with MEDRS and NPOV in many controversial articles. QG is one of the most tendentious editors I have come across, on any side of any issue. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The well sourced text is being deleting for non-medical claims. For non-medical claims the Journal of traditional Chinese medicine is usable according to User:Alexbrn. What is wrong with the source in question? Nothing, for non-medical claims. The deletion of NPOV sourced text by Jytdog has been quickly reverted. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * yes it was, by people who were not involved in the long and careful discussion; i have no idea what motivated them and neither can you, QG.Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I and others made arguments we should not use the source for medical claims but for non-medical claims the source is "usable". QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Jytdog - What happened was that Quack lodged a complaint against you without informing you (or anyone else actively participating in the discussion). It's intellectual dishonesty at its worse. -A1candidate (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You deleted well sourced text for non-medical statements. Your edit does not match your edit summary. For non-medical claims that are not in the fringe space the text and source is usable. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree that while Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicin is usable to support appropriate non-medical claims, with due care, it is a source we would like to avoid, much as we like to avoid tabloids, even when they are a suitable source, if a better source is available. Luckily the Wikipedia article on the GERAC cites Tidy's Physiotherapy p. 408, which is available at Google books and gives a slightly more detailed narrative. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC). 00:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute. Has anyone started a RfC to get consensus around this issue? Can you please link it here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This was my last proposal. No RfC has been started on this yet. A few editors don't want me to use that Chinese journal even for text that is not in the fringe space. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * respectfully, doc james, i posted here not with regard to a content dispute but rather with regard to the recent RFCU on QG. My post was about his behavior. There is a single sentence - about insurance companies actually cancelling coverage for acu due to GERAC and supported by a single source that fails WP:FRIND, and both the source and the content have been carefully discussed and dismissed on Talk, and he has no support, yet he persists and persists and tries every trick in the book to get the content and source in.  Middle8 and mallexikon had a point.Jytdog (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * File a RfC content. If this issue is perfectly clear you will get consensus and than if QG persists against a clear consensus than we have an issue. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * hey doc, I did not come here asking for advice. I came here to give you a heads up. I do appreciate you telling me what kind of behavior you would need to see evidenced. Thanks for that.Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How about a RfC for the proposal? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you want to forum-shop yet more, quackguru? Your tenacity about getting this single sentence into the article and your efforts to blow off the already-established consensus on the 2 sources will probably exhaust everyone eventually. not yet, but eventually.Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So Jytdog you say there is an already-established consensus and than state that their is no RfC on the topic? Now we have GC who is suggesting they start one and you refer to this as "forum-shopping"? Hum. Yes QG please draft a RfC content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Draft

==RfC: What specific information should be included in German acupuncture trials from reliable sources on somewhat of a fringe topic?==

Should the German acupuncture trials article contain more well-supported information, as seen in this version?

===Survey===


 * More well-supported information. As proposer. See diff. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

===Threaded discussion===

doc james i don't understand. again, we had a long, careful conversation about the two sources that QG wants to use already, prompted by jps deleting both these sources (here and here and here and here during which the language QG wanted to use was addressed and not accepted.  QG didn't like the outcome, so he waited a bit, tried to reintroduce it, got reverted by me; I explained why on Talk, so he went to the Fringe noticeboard (where he got no support, and at the same time went to the project medicine board where he got no support and now you have encouraged him to do an RfC. That is classic forum shopping and the definition of IDHT; I and others have wasted our time actually trying to work toward consensus. Generally you are great; here you knee-jerk support for QG just facilitates his bad behavior. of course RfCs are great and an essential tool of Wikipedia. Not when they are used like this, so that one editor can keep hammering away. I give up, actually. I have stopped watching the article and will be sure to step away from articles where QG does his thing in the future. Jytdog (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Increasingly, that's what I do too. Better to make progress than make waves. Alexbrn talk 10:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A RfC is simple, easy and hardly forum shopping. I have recommended it to both sides in this discussion. QG I would make the RfC much more specific. Such as should we add line X. Support / Oppose. An RfC only deals with one specific question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Lysine acetylsalicylate
Hi, James. The aspirin page mentions and links to a page that doesn't exist, namely, lysine acetylsalicylate, and I felt it would be nice if someone (namely, myself) could create such a page and make a nice little article that follows the applicable style guide. The reason why I'm leaving you this message is basically to ask do you think it'd be worth it as I'm afraid if I did it would be merged with aspirin and all my labours would go down the toilet. Fuse809 (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there enough secondary sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point; no. I've found two review articles on lysine aspirin as it's only used in certain European countries, mostly. Now I see the structure of this form of aspirin I see it's just another salt form (I thought the lysine was actually covalently bonded to the aspirin in a similar way to lisdexamfetamine) so I withdraw my request. I'll just make mention on the aspirin page. Thanks for your time. Fuse809 (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello and Thanks!
Thank you very much!Lmciszak (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Tramadol
Hi, James; I've noticed that tramadol has a heap of dosing info on it, which I plan to rectify, but I would like to know whether or not you think I would be going too far in removing the formulation section due to the fact that by giving the dosages found in the different dosage forms it could be interpreted as giving dosing info. Thanks for your time. Fuse809 (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am happy for the risk of dependence dose to remain in - that article also needs a section on serotonergic issues with SSRIs etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Found a video of you on youtube
Found a video of you on youtube - creative commons licensed! added it to your article :) Victor Grigas (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary source / Secondary source in Autism article
Hey Doc James! Thanks for your message. Appreciate the opportunity to learn more about referencing. Can you help me understand why the New England Journal of Medicine article is not an appropriate source? "Patches of Disorganization in the Neocortex of Children with Autism" http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1307491 — Preceding unsigned comment added by January2009 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a primary research study. We much prefer secondary sources such as review articles and major textbooks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)