User talk:Doc James/Archive 8

Nice picture at Fake food in Japan
Very good detailing in the picture. The article needed something to show how realistic these pieces can get. --C S (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for putting right my erroneous 'correction' to the article on car accidents. Asbr01 Asbr01 (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Copy-editing your evidence section
Hi Doc James, There are some odd wordings in your evidence section that I keep stumbling over: in a couple of places you wrote "well" when you apparently meant "while," and in one place you wrote "degree" when I think you meant "decrease." I even started an edit where I corrected some of those little things, but then decided it would be rude and presumptuous of me to do so. You might take a look at it if you have time. Woonpton (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No please correct away. My spelling is bad.  Had in part to do with learning speed writing when I was younger but that is another story.  Anyway thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I made a few changes. I guessed that "fugues" was meant to be "figures" but that was just a guess; of course revert if I guessed wrong.  I was also tempted to change the word "review" because Ospina et al 2007 is a meta-analysis, not a review, but  that would definitely be going beyond my remit as a copy editor. Woonpton (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you both good points. A meta analysis is a type of review but the highest quality of review so yes will change it to that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edit
I did not refute anything. I indicated that the most recent research questioned the aggresive limitation of salt and provided the references. Do you believe that this information should not be made public? Terryfirma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC).

Recent revision
I have reviewed the guidelines and have not seen anything that would disallow my recent contribution. To question is not to refute.

May I have your comments please? Terryfirma (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * have responded on your user page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wondering
Is it possible that the combination of the Anthrax Vac. and Bromide taken in combination would create a problem? The point I'm getting is that there was many vacs taking by the military prior to deployment to the gulf which was not by choice if you wanted to stay in the military. (Intruder1670 (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC))


 * I do not no what is possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RE:
James, I Would like to know how you consider what i edited as "vandalism". I would also like to know why you believe you have the power to block my abilities on wikipedia based on non-sourced statements, given their validity; such that those formations are now easily sourcable given proven tests. Considering your canning ability to pick out your disapprovals, such actions are irresponsible, and, possibly even biased. You have absolutely no idea who i am and the medical background i come from. If your issue escalates based on my viable statements, i would be more than willing and able to pursue my right to making legitimate and congruent changes to such topics pertaining to my field of expertise if you or any other physician has unjust reason to deny my actions. Tampering with material may also result in the removal or forfeiture of your own personal account, without the possiblity of reactivation. my recommendation to yourself for your own personal safety of your account would be to advise other contributors of their short commings rather than outright and irresponsible threats. working in this profession, i am offended by your blaintent statements and lack of professionalism. By making such abusive and reckless threats towards my contributing efforts, unfortuantely if this issue does not resolve, which i hope it will, the only other viable and forceable option for myself to pursue would be that of opening up an inquiry to the college of physicians and surgeons of Saskatchewan. Given your efforts in the medical industry as a physician, such actions are not my motive to harm, defame or affect your career in any way; rather, to protect my own abilities to help others in need of retaining legitimate and sourced material. such statements through myself were not sourced but are legitimate. if you want me to contact you by phone or email to suffice this issure further, please don't hesitate to offer yourself to conversation. Best wishes in making your decision, but from this point forward, actions that have been displayed by yourself will not be tolerated by myself absoluely.

regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.76.194 (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are referring to as it seems you seem to change the IP you edit from. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.76.194 (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

multiple sclerosis edit; inquiry submitted and pending; college of physicians and surgeons of Saskatchewan-february 27, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.76.194 (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes if you delete well referenced content without explanation and change the sentence to the exact opposite you get warned . All the best. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

173.212.76.194, I am amazed that you have just felt the need to make legal threats. Given that Wikipedia users usually edit anonymously and pseudonymously, there is no way that Jmh649 could have known your professional background. On Wikipedia we try to disagree about issues and sources rather than taking every disagreement as a professional slight. I cannot imagine any professional body being particularly interested about disagreements in online forums unless real names are being used. I strongly urge you to desist from making threats such as above. You can get blocked from editing Wikipedia for making legal threats. JFW | T@lk  20:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Heart Failure
Not quite sure of your reference material as you are comparing an observational study to a randomized controlled double blinded clinical trial. This is picking from the lowest level of the evidence based medicine pyramid instead of the highest. Many of the guidelines are based upon urbal legend rather than clinically derived evidence. The authors of the Paterna study stated, "In conclusion, these data suggest that the combination of a normal-sodium diet with high diuretic doses and fluid intake restriction, compared with different combinations of sodium diets with more modest fluid intake restrictions and conventional diuretic doses, leads to reductions in readmissions, neurohormonal activation, and renal dysfunction."

In fact, their conclusions were consistent with the three major NHANES publications of the Albert Einstein Medical Group, which represent a far larger population than the study you cite. Please see the following papers:

Cohen HW, Hailpern SM, Alderman MH, “Sodium intake and mortality follow-up in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III),” - J Gen Intern Med., 2008, Sep;23(9):1297-302. Epub 2008 May 9.

Cohen HW, Hailpern SM, Fang J, Alderman MH, “Sodium Intake and Mortality in the NHANES II Follow-up Study,” Am J Med (2006) 119, 275.e7-275.e14

Alderman MH, Cohen HW, Madhavan, S, “Dietary sodium intake and mortality: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I),” THE LANCET, 351, March 14, 1998.

Terryfirma (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That was not my point as I was not suggesting we use that source. My point is that we should not use primary research by that we should use reviews.  Ask at WP:MED if you wish further opinions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Due caution
Hi James. I appreciate your hard work on the medicine articles. We need more doctors who are willing to do this work. I notice you did some extensive revising at the alternative medicine article, which has always been a warzone and tinderdry forest waiting for any spark. This particular edit was far too large to be able to really know what you did. Please make very small edits and save them. Then move on. When editors, including myself, see such large edits, it's very tempting to just revert them. That would be a shame, but it's often the only way to ensure that each aspect of an edit is understandable and according to consensus. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. That section of the article was a total mess and needed a reorganization.  I run through the problems on the talk page.  I mostly just reordered, summarized, properly referenced, and removed information that was duplicated.  Hopefully all will read the two version, discuss things on the talk page, and WP:AGF.  BTW I left a note on the talk page if you have comments.  Just reverting a large change is against WP:policy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. I have no intention of reverting, but it's standard practice when content has been added or changed without consensus, per BRD. If it had been a known pusher of fringe POV I would have reverted right away and forced them to explain themselves. Such large edits are very difficult to analyze. All I could see was that a large amount of material had been removed and what was left was rearranged. I AGF because I trust your judgment. I can't do that with certain editors who will make sneaky changes hidden within such a large edit, and their edit summary is then misleading. I hope you understand the problem now. It's just best for all editors to make smaller edits and move slower. That way it's easier for everyone to see what's happened and lessens suspicions. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you analysis of my judgment. We were however discussing this on the talk page and two other editors agreed it was a good idea.  It was a response to the concern posted at WP:MED.  If I took out anything / missed anything feel free to add it back in.  What was there before however was very poor.  Anyway hope we can move forwards from here.  I see you do a lot of work bringing reason to what are often referred to as fringe ideas and for that I commend you. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, if you do lots of small edits, then other people will complain about that, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * True enough! Large or small edits will often meet with resistance from someone. Bringing reason to some articles seems like futile effort, especially when they are being held hostage by fringe elements. I've been having problems at the ghost talk page with an editor who refuses to accept the word of the National Science Foundation, and has added tags to the article on content that was approved by an RfC which he doesn't agree with. Sometimes I really wish that Wikipedia took a harder line against fringe POV pushers who are expert stonewallers. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hypertension
Hi, I hope you have free time for this, I am currently very interested in reworking with you to get the hypertension article back to Good article state, but I want you to help me also on working on the article it self if you can, and not just to do the review, can you help me with that? or am I asking too much :-) M aen K. A.  Talk  18:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I can. Just not much in the next month.  I will add the emergency medicine aspect of things and will look it over.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats great :-), I ll start reworking on the article very soon M aen K. A.  Talk  17:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrangham
Doc,

The point of the edit was to, without starting an edit war with True Believers, inject some aspect of sense. The book does just as I suggested, though I would agree that my phrasing was less well wrought than it could have been. I was seriously trying to avoid an edit war. It's well written and accessible to the lay audience and so appropriate for this article.

Being a doc, you should be quite interested in it, as it is one of the very few books which have caused me to sit up with a start part way through. If you treat patients with GI problems, obesity problems, etc it will seriously illuminate some back pages in your brain, possibly with good clinical effect.

Furthermore, it should cause you the same startle response it caused me by providing some illumination on questions of our differences from our nearest cousins. We are truly weird apes, with wimpy muscles, pitiful mouths and teeth, peculiar eating habits (ie, social behavior in and around food -- contrast the behavior described in The Ik (by Trumbell?) which describes quite chimp like behavior in humans and provokes much disquiet in us readers), odd sexual behavior patterns, very odd maturation patterns, oddish childrearing, etc etc. Wrangham has, I think, a reasonable approach to an explanation (if somewhat speculative) for quite a considerable amount of that. Since the changes which ended up with us from the common ancestor are largely behavioral (we do share essentially all of our DNA with our cousins, as we now know without possibility of cavil), there is little hard (pun intended) evidence for them. Wrangham makes a good case, good enough to ponder at length.

And it has a more than adequate bibliographic apparat, which should satisfy much of the curiosity of the open minded. It will have no effect on raw foods True Believers. The summary in Wrangham's page here is quite inadequate.

I'd like to see it returned, if not in the exact form I left it.

Comments? Comments after you look into the book? ww (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * He is a primatologist. This book is not a peer reviewed source.  Thus it does not support "research on raw food diets and notes that such diets result in weight  loss in all reputable studies".  The rest of this passage belongs on a page about this book. Much of the rest of what is on this page is also not really true and this page needs a rewrite. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Typo?
Please take a look here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded there. This wasn't really a typo, just an appearance created by how the wiki formats signatures. --Abd (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Abd Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

CCSVI
Curious about your hit on Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, and how we should handle the rapid developments. Your watching of that article might be useful, if you aren't. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Was not watching this page just the spill over onto the page regarding MS. A review article was just published a few days ago.  Before that this condition was released by press conference. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there was more than that, for example, A prospective open-label study of endovascular treatment of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency. I'm pointing out that there are two quite distinct issues here, the first being the existence of the syndrome and its relationship to MS, the second being treatment approaches that might be suggested by a diagnosis or theory of MS that takes into account the effect of CCSVI as a cause or symptom of MS. The bulk of the criticism so far seems to be noting the dangers of invasive surgery for a treatment not established as safe. But specific treatment can be useless or worse than useless, it has nothing to do with the syndrome treated, they are separate issues, and the Buffalo study -- still reported only by press release -- is clearly coming up with very positive results on the existence of a syndrome, strongly associated with MS, and yesterday's press release, I cited on the Talk page at the article, seems to be more significant than what was previously reported. Obviously, MS is a complex disease, and way too little work has been done on CCSVI to come to conclusions, and that's pretty much what most of the critics are claiming. Nevertheless, for obvious reasons, CCSVI is attracting a lot of attention and readers are going to want to know what the flap is about, and we can, with full respect for policy and guidelines, tell them and point them to where they can get more information. --Abd (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes agree. When one says "science by press release" it is an insult.  A tv documentary promoted this finding before the scientific study was released.  It is being pushed by people with the disease and the media rather than by the science behind the idea at this point it seems.  The medical post has two article on the topic.  Will dig them up when I have time.  Am a little busy in real life.  May have time Friday night :-)  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Silly me, that press release was Feb. 10. I need to get it into my head that this is March. It's obvious why there is such interest. If I had MS, given what I've seen, I might want the surgery, whether I'd want to wait would be dependent on how severe my present symptoms were. At this point, with bad enough symptoms, I'd place my bet on the syndrome being real, and go for treatment, even though it's obviously not "science" quite yet. However, I'd also make sure to read more on this than I can easily access, including the possibly critical review just published. It's important, as well, to recognize the huge inertia that has to do with entrenched practice, investment in drugs, and the marketing of same. The good news here is that more advanced research is being actively promoted, so, ultimately, were I that patient, I might also consider waiting until more is known. Technically, Doc, science never pushes anything.... it's an analytical technique of high value, but also sometimes over-rated as a method of making personal decisions; we frequently must make decisions short of "scientific proof," which is a bit of a misnomer in itself. News organizations are interested in covering what they think will be of interest to their readers/viewers, that's how it works.... Hopefully, the writers and editors do present what they find neutrally, as should we. --Abd (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Completed!
Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out that you still have the following articles on hold from January: Influenza A virus subtype H5N1, LEOPARD syndrome, and Orlistat. When you get a chance, can you please close them, so we can update our final statistics. If you have any questions, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Any updates on this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry it will have to wait until April. You can finish up if you like and close it how you see fit. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I never like delisting articles, but sometimes it has to be done. I also got my fair share of backlash from unhappy editors. Fortunately, it usually does not take too much effort to return an article to GA (the backlog is actually the hardest part). Although it would be nice to have tag-team, it would probably make the backlog even longer. It does help in certain situations though. Thank you again for contributing to Sweeps. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring task force
Doc James -- This text could be added to my statement at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification?

Doing nothing is an option; but what is best? My deference and patience during the six months in which ArbCom dawdled was unrewarded; and silence appears to have defined me as a dupe. Now I have endured an further three months in limbo. ArbCom radicalizes when its mission should have been to encourage quite opposite goals. --Tenmei (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Supplementary statement


 * A task force is established to work on a single defined task or activity. Drawing lessons from the photo at the right: If wiki-"mentoring" is at all like teaching Afghan women to raise bees and chickens, delay produces neither honey nor eggs.


 * A "mentoring task Force" (MTF) for me is a more topical or timely name than "mentorship committee." The word "task" emphasises our short- and long-term objectives; and the identified volunteers have been waiting too long to begin addressing specific tasks-at-hand.


 * The most widely publicized examples of on-going mentoring are linked with the phrase "task force." For example, NATO's Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) are an important part of its contribution towards stabilizing Afghanistan. Australia's military programme in Afghanistan has been re-named   Mentoring Task Force (MTF) concurrent with deployments in 2010.   The Canadian mentoring programme in Afghanistan appears controversial precisely because of allegations that the Harper governent is waiting too long to get started &mdash; see Matthew Fisher, "Canada may have painted itself into corner in Afghanistan," The Gazette (Montreal). March 12, 2010.


 * A Google search for the phrase "mentoring task force" produces a range non-military hits, including an American Anthropological Association report in 2009 which ends with the words "Don't Drop the ball."


 * I do recognize that this is a pivotal time for ArbCom as Wikipedia's future development unfolds; nevertheless, my role requires me to reiterate: "Don't drop the ball."


 * Yes they need to let you get back to editing. Are you bared from editing until they make a decision btw?  I am leaving the country on tuesday and will not be back until early April.  Thus will wait until I return to advocate further on your behalf. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I construe the restriction to apply until at least one "mentor" has been approved by ArbCom. Prior to December, I tended to interpret things according to a "reasonable man" standard; but that appears not to be conventional in this venue? --Tenmei (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Message for you
You have a message at Wikiproject medicines talk page (on the subject of the Liver cancer article). Immunize (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And another one Talk:User:Immunize/Differential diagnosis for a fever Immunize (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Osteoarthritis
Hey,

I am a 4th year medical student from Southampton Medical School. I am writing a report on Osteoarthritis and i wish to use the x-ray image of the knee joint.

Unfortunately i cannot reference wikipedia, so could you possibly provide me with a reference i can use?

Many thanks.

Regards

Dominic

P.s Could you send it to blinker41@hotmail.com, as i do not have a domain on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.11.49 (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It should not be a problem using the X ray in your report. You must however credit Wikipedia and should also credit myself.  This is an image of the xray machine of a patient I saw at work. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Neuroblastoma review
Hi--looked over and updated more items on Neuroblastoma. Anything more you'd like addressed for a completed review? Thanks!DMLud (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Will look when I get hom in April Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Immunize (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded the User:Immunize/Differential diagnosis for a fever
I have copy-pasted a short summary of each illness in the article from the Wikipedia article on it, to put it into context, and would like your opinion on any further improvements that should be made before the article is moved out of my userspace. Regards. Immunize (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will be home in four weeks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Meaning your taking a wikibreak? Immunize (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Meaning I am at an internet cafe in a third world country. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Another article on diabetes in the Economist
This article is better than the one we discussed (that I didn't feel I should copy here for you because it came from a paid search). This one is open access (non-subscribers can read free) from the current issue[]. Same main point; that gross excess of saturated fats is the primary problem. Remember me mentioning diabetics from the audience featured on the DR OZ show? So far, I've seen two cases (out of two) on the show where the "patients" (with diet and moderate exercise) are now off all medications and have normal blood sugar.

There is a cure, but it entails changing lifestyles. Maybe that's not a cure in the US, where few take personal responsibility for their actions.Zinbarg (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a review article in a medical journal? -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles
On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 18 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 00:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Immunize (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Tenmei mentorship
Your input is desired at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Arbitrator Risker has posed a number of questions relevant to the mentors, and members of the committee would like to see them answered. Thank you, ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ADHD
You got the wrong user. :) This is the only edit I've ever made to that page. Changed one link and that was all. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 22:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reponded to you at my talk page
I screwed up and explained what I was trying to do. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  09:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Immunize (talk) (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

MCOTW
I'm not of the impression that there is much appetite for MCOTW at the moment. I think the whole ADHD thing also worried me a lot and put me off rolling it over. Are you perhaps offering your help as MCOTW administrator?? JFW | T@lk  20:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The trouble with MCOTW is that unless 2-3 editors do heavy editing of an article, the changes are really quite marginal. The cancer and pneumonia articles are huge topics that need a single lead editor who coordinates the effort.
 * I personally work quite differently now. If you observe my edits, you will find that I mostly do patrolling for much of the time, and once every few weeks I do hard work on a single article that then gets pushed to GA (see hepatic encephalopathy). JFW | T@lk  20:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you plan to sink your teeth into pneumonia. It is a topic I need to review for work anyway and it would be a good way to get the BTS pneumonia guidelines into my brain. JFW | T@lk  21:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with making pneumonia the next MCOTW. The whole voting system is frankly a bit silly, and perhaps we should just continue the page as benevolent dictators. Please also add your name at the top to state that you are MCOTW administrator. JFW | T@lk  21:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

NHLBI
Don't think there are any copyright restrictions on the NHLBI content. JFW | T@lk  22:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Large Cell Lung Carcinoma with Rhabdoid Phenotype
Dear Doc James:

Thanks for looking over the article referenced above, and darned fast, too like within 30 minutes! I appreciate it.

Allow me a few questions, if you would:

1. The referencing tool you spoke of - where can I find it? My apologies for the way I typed them in - just got in the habit of doing it that way!

2. Why, for God's sake, did you rate the article a "start class" article? I used just darned near every single Pubmed reference on the subject there is - even to the point of redundancy. What else should (can) I do?

I'm very interested in the rarer lung cancer phenotypes, and this is my second article that I've made decent progress on (the other is combined small cell lung carcinoma, check on that one if you would, but for God's sake be easy on my ego, I got a "B" on the first one :-)

With very best regards (and my thanks): Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, Sweet Relief :-)
Thanks Doc - I will take a "B". And thanks for the tool. I will check it out.

Again, I appreciate your help.

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion–breast_cancer_hypothesis
I initially missed your response in the MastCell fray, I've replied. Thanks for your quality participation. - RoyBoy 17:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jumping to level4 warnings
Seems like some of your warnings are a bit harsh lately. An editor's first-ever edit is to add a few random characters to Tuberculosis and you slap him with ? WP:BITE! The edits aren't malicious, defamatory, a rapidfire spate of vandalism across many pages, or some other "strictly forbidden" bad-faith behavior, so you should consider starting at level 1 or 2 for those things, per UTM. DMacks (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding random text IMO deserves a harsh warning as someone must take the time and fix it. We have a great deal of random vandalism that sits for some time.  Will start lower with some of the warnings.   Cheers  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's play nice;
I wrote the article on Lepore syndrome that you started, not trying to be childish just to make a point and I see you changed the name to Hemoglobin Lepore syndrome, that's fast. My childish behavior, temper tantrums, solve nothing. I prefer not to engage in childish tit for tat. If I stay calm I know how to present a proper oral and or in this case written argument, I'm not that guy Scuro, I prefer not. So I'm asking nice as per WP:Civil, please do not arbitrarily butcher what I created, I'm also a big boy I know how to read Wikipedia's policies, the policies are not set in stone and the pictures do not all have to be crammed on the right, if there is only one picture yes more than one it looks better to stagger them. I don't have the time right now but there is a Wikipedia policy about breaking Wikipedia policy. I actually prefer to edit history articles. The article I Did on Eating disorders I believe came out well as did the one on Anorexia nervosa, as another editer made mention about "dissection" that's not very nice and not keeping in the collaborative effort as it was based upon your views and interpretions.

Things like this need attention: The article on the thyroid gland was labelled as part of the "endocinal jubachina system" for two and a half years. The article on Birth weight is inexplicably called Birth Mass, nobody refers to "birth mass" it's also written poorly.

As for the articles needing to be created maybe I will do one of them, I appreciate the link. So lets just have a truce and drop it. 7mike5000 (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks Cool Tool7mike5000 (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles
Related to your comments at WP:MEDA the other day: Would you like to take a look through Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles and assign priorities to some of them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good will do. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

BHRT redux
Thanks for your comment on talk:BHRT. LiteratureGeek has been helping out a lot, and there is now a mediator taking up the case, which is heartening, but I've been banging my head against this wall repeatedly, with very circular arguments going nowhere. Repeated requrests at WT:MED was helpful in that LG ended up volunteering to assist, but aside from that I've gotten little response. I see my comments as very mainstream interpretations of the P&G, and Hillinpa's comments as evidence of a new editor with little with wikipedia's mores but lots of familiarity with a specific slice of the literature (and a very fixed interpretation that may have merit but is just too soon to be included in the main page). I realize you probably don't want to get involved, but if you have any suggestions, I'm very open to them. I've developed forehead callus, and just as it was starting to slough off...

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

image problem at PTSD - can you help
Greetings! We're having an image problem at this article - literally (!). File:PTSD stress brain.gif is not displaying in the "Causes" section, and I cannot see the problem. I'm thinking you likely put the image there and may be able to find the problem. If you can fix the problem, that would be your good deed for this day. Thanks, if you have the time. Tom Cloyd (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)