User talk:Doc James/Archive 95

copy of msg sent via Wikipedia "email"
I have mobilized moral support from my fellow sufferers in forums to get a couple Wikipedia pages improved that deal with our condition. However initial attempts to contact knowledgeable professionals have not yet yielded results. Can you advise me?

The pages in question are two entries involving MAC: 1. about MAI, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium_avium-intracellulare_infection 2. about MAC proper, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium_avium_complex

I am aware that five years ago a discussion was started on whether to merge the two entries, but no decision was ever reached.

Thanks. Seniorexpat (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Will take a look. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I notice that my entry on your talk page is about to expire. What did your cursory look reveal to you?

In the meantime my ambitions are greater than before. I now see that two more pages are involved, which IMO should be linked with those pages cited above. Otherwise patients are getting confused in understanding these issues, which are "underdiagnosed" and thus spreading to more people: So-called "subject-matter experts" are needed to evaluate the components and to help me establish clarity and coherence. Seniorexpat (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nontuberculous_mycobacteria (have already added a simple hyperlink myself here)
 * Mycobacterium
 * I have adjusted the MAC infection article User:Seniorexpat. I guess the question is do we need an article for the bacteria MAC proper and NTMB? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not mean to suggest a deletion. Instead, I propose a better linking among the four pages to make clear the relationships, in particular the Items below No. 1-5 ..... Seniorexpat (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for making a start. I have more concerns/ questions:

1. A certain Jerome Reich, M.D., has commented to me: "I think it would be appropriate to classify both articles under Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare disease (Infection and disease are not synonymous.)" Do you agree with that?

2. Problems continue with a “Taxonomy” here ...

Nontuberculous_mycobacteria

… that is redundant and poorly collated with this detailed list of “Species”:

Mycobacterium How do you think we should proceed?

3. The material under Mycobacterium_avium_complex is from the Nineteen-nineties!

I propose, as one improvement among many potential ones, to integrate this new paper: Aksamit, Timothy R. et al. (2013):  Nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) lung disease: The top ten essentials, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2013.09.014 How do you think we should proceed?

(Full disclosure: I have no financial, academic or fame interests influencing me in this matter. I did once get to know and respect the main author.) Seniorexpat (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional concerns/ questions:

4. I have added a link to another paper vetted by Aksamit et al., which is known among sufferers as central and meaningful to patients.

5. Another sufferer in another forum has suggested -- and got backup from others -- that we need a link to Non-CF Bronchiectasis, although the relation between the two is still in need of more research. I have made only the minimum link there myself, see Bronchiectasis

Seniorexpat (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

SOLVED

Finally I have received word from a renowned subj.-matter expert that he is willing to meet with me in July. He is a co-author of Aksamit et al. (2013). I hope that the fruits of my collaboration with him will meet with your approval. If some edits prove tricky, I may need your help again. Thanks for now. Seniorexpat (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the intrusion, User:Seniorexpat. Just wondering why this is not discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to gain more exposure?  Ottawahitech (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me


 * Thanks, User:Ottawahitech, for your concern, but right now we don't need any "more exposure". I will meet with a world-renowned expert from July 4-8th, and devote some of our precious time together (and away from his patients) to improving these entries. Seniorexpat (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Medical nutrition
Medical Nutrition and Medical Nutrition Therapy are NOT the same thing. One is specifically referring to dietary needs and the other is specifically including counseling and potentially other external therapeutic components. In my view this is a long needed addition although it should be worded slightly different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.120.52 (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So medical nutrition therapy includes medical nutrition. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Acetabular fracture
A new person doubled the size of the article. Syntax wise, it is in horrible shape. Content wise, I haven't a clue. Taletale signs say they copied the text from somewhere. Could you take a look. Bgwhite (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Traveling. Agree it looks concerning User:Bgwhite. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Bleomycin
"Baby" is an emotionally-laden word used by anti-abortion activists to refer to the embryo and fetus. If the mother aborts a defective fetus, there is no baby.

All the medical texts I've seen, such as the Merck Manual Home Edition http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/women-s-health-issues/normal-pregnancy/medical-care-during-pregnancy#v809599 (which is edited for laymen) and all the patient information I've seen written on a 12th-grade level or higher, refer to a blastocyst, embryo or fetus before birth and a baby or neonate after birth. A medical editor (PhD biology) once corrected me on that.

Bleomycin doesn't harm the baby, it harms the embryo or fetus. It doesn't act on the baby, it acts on the embryo or fetus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bleomycin&type=revision&diff=727249044&oldid=726555043 --Nbauman (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In common English baby is used more generally to refer to the fetus during much of pregnancy. As the defects are still present at birth it is also technically correct that the baby ends up harmed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example of a medical publication (including one for laymen) that refers to an embryo or fetus as a "baby"? --Nbauman (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure
 * Here is an ACOG paper which is titled "Prenatal Development: How Your Baby Grows During Pregnancy" It goes on to say "From implantation until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy, the baby is called an embryo. From the ninth week of pregnancy until birth, it is called a fetus."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds like this

Automatic archives
Hi,

Your automatic archive (by lcsb3) seems to be non-functional because...

Your archive= variable is pointing to your (seemingly) old username. You may want to update it to Doc James and update the counter to 93.

It was my pleasure to meet you in person. &mdash; regards, Revi 15:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool thanks User:-revi. Yes great meeting in person :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Harassment
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Harassment. A pretty solid consensus has emerged for removing the disputed exception, especially considering that it is in conflict with WMF privacy policy. Also, the specific wording that you added never had consensus. - MrX 17:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * user: MrX that wording had consensus. It has been in the article a long time. You are free to start a formal RfC to have it removed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I, and I think others, dispute that the wording had consensus. Please see my comments on the talk page.- MrX 17:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks already say it and replied there. We have a number of issues:
 * 1) Are undisclosed paid promotional editors allowed to use the privacy policy to hide their breach of our terms of use regarding paid editing?
 * 2) Some have stated people should just report it to arbcom; however, arbcom has made it clear previously that they will not be involved in enforcing our terms of use and legal states rightly that they do not have the staff to do so. Thus it is left to the general community.
 * 3) If someone discloses their real name by using it as their user name and only edits are to an article they are being paid to edit, must we really bend over backwards and pretend the obvious is not happening?
 * 4) Right now we have the wording in the WP:OUTING policy "posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis" to allow for the community to try to enforce somewhat our terms of use.
 * 5) The current block of User:Jytdog unfortunately opens the door wide open to undisclosed paid editors. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The privacy policy should apply to all users of the websites, regardless of who they are or what their intent is.
 * I don't think Arbcom is the correct place to report paid editing. I also don't think it's one of the community's highest priorities.
 * No, but we should be able to deal with those situations without outing editors.
 * Yes, you added that and it's in dispute.
 * Jytdog is not the only user fending off paid editors. I certainly have done my share of scutwork to help keep promotional content out of Wikipedia. I don't worry about whether they're paid or not; I just assume they are.
 * - MrX 18:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop edit warring. Consider this formal and final warning.- MrX 18:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks user:MrX for the heads up. Those discussing the issues on private channels of course are a little farther ahead. We need to allow the rest of the community who is not on those private channels to have a chance to get up to speed and involved with the discussion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
Arbitration/Requests/Case — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseL2P (talk • contribs) 02:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:A1candidate/User:RoseL2P for the heads up. As I am currently involved with more or less all the arbcom members not sure exactly who will adjudicate your case against me. We would need an indepedent jury IMO. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

An important discussion related to COI follow up
Here Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Doc, quite some time ago, there was a case of an editor who was disrupting medical articles, at the same time that I independently discovered he had been editing Venezuelan articles with a bias for pay. I cannot recall the articles or the editor's name, but he was blocked after I linked to the evidence at ANI.  How is that any different?  Can you recall that incident or help me find it in ANI?  It involved crossover between medical COI editing and Venezuela COI editing, and it turned out he was for hire.  I need to find that ANI thread to understand why that was OK, but Jytdog is blocked for doing as far as I can remember exactly what I did then.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * found it ... it was User FergusM1970, editing on e-cigs and Derwick Associates ... what's the difference here? Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes FergusM was a paid editor. His group send messages to my university and sent me death threats via twitter. They put me on a top 10 most hated list. One is no longer allowed to link to any of this evidence on Wikipedia it appears. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting example, that should be brought up at WT:OUTING. Interestingly, I see two former Arbs coming down on the side of supporting a ban based to a significant extent on the Twitter information. I'm not saying that either "side" is right, but there is clearly some inconsistency. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What they are saying is we were simply lucky. That what has historically been allowed is no longer allowed and some are claiming it was never allowed. Now that pubmed contains links to "personal accounts" such as we see here even linking to pubmed may be disallowed by those taking an extreme view. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, are they now saying that PubMed is a problem link because contributors there are allowed to link to their own Wikipedia accounts? - Brianhe (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some functionaries are saying that no linking to any site that contains an account that contains personal information (or that may potentially contains personal information in the future) is ever allowed. Pubmed now fits that description.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm fuzzy on what's the tripwire condition here. Say some (hypothetical) user Purple Hazeberry exists on Wikipedia and a user with the same name exists on PubMed, and PubMed happens to host personal information on Purple Hazeberry posted by himself, in his COI declaration. Now if all those conditions are true, then any page on PubMed must not be linked to? Or maybe just not Purple Hazeberry's user profile or his COI declaration? - Brianhe (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a RfC asking if linking to a site that may in the future connect a Wikipedia account to another account on another site is ever allowed and many functionaries are saying no it is not allowed. Pubmed fits that description. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The project translation of articles in medicin on svwp
Dear Doc,

Right now on the Swedish Village pump the translations are questioned. I have explained that the translations are made, and adopted to current versions, and that they are good. This is just information, and not that you have to contribute in the discussion. User CFCF is doing a great job, and this will not affect the project. Best regards, Adville (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for the heads up User:Adville Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc James arbitration request declined
Hi,

Just dropping you a note that a recent case request involving you has been declined and archived.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Mdann52 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Heart failure
Paragraph 4 on the article WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple HF is a little unclear. It says:

What does the each year mean? Do you mean it decreases by 10% or stays below 10% after the first year. Also, it is a little unclear whether this is risk of death in general or following disease relating to heart failure. Once patients are of a certain age the yearly risk of death is beyond 10% for any cause - so I hope you see why I am confused. Also I wasn't able to find any clarification in the 120 page guideline, it might be good to use pagenumbers. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 13:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Same issue present in the Heart failure article. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 13:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First year risk is 35% than less than 10% die the next year, and less than 10% the year after that. Technically in 8 years all could be dead. Page is 19-24.
 * Quote is "Heart failure has a poor prognosis: 30-40% of patients diagnosed with heart failure die within a year – but thereafter the mortality is less than 10% per year.9,10 Survival rates are similar to those from cancer of the colon, and worse than those from cancer of the breast or prostate.11" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that's 10% of survivors each year or 10% of the original cohort each year? Here's how it compares

Ladsgroupoverleg 22:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked on ladwiki yesterday, and don't think a single article exists there. If someone writes on, or if I find one, I'll definitely update the page. Meanwhile, though, can you add the iw links to the pages? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog
So a competent and prolific contributor to Wikipedia, working (like you) mainly on articles that actually make a difference to people's lives, has been indeffed, without previous warning, for an action that did not clearly contravene any policy. This is very sad. Maproom (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He has also stated that he will never add external links to peoples public professional profiles on other websites again. And still he remains blocked. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you think about the following issue
First, I appreciate you bringing questions like Wikipedia Signpost/2016-07-04/Op-ed to the attention of the community. Standing up for the little editors against the oligarchy which inevitably ends up running any project is valuable. I would appreciate your thoughts on a matter which recently has caught my attention (Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion). In short, it seems that that the dominant interpretation of a certain aspect of blocking and deletion policy by administrators is that it is ok to delete perfectly good articles because of who their creator is. In other words, if a banned/blocked editor submits a good edit, it is fine to delete it to punish them, as "teaching the trolls their place" seems to trump the "building the encyclopedia" argument. I personally do not buy that, but the discussion there seems primarily limited to admins who enforce it, and they seem happy with the situation as it is. I wonder whether you think this is an issue worth discussing more widely, and if so, how would you recommend going about it: an RfC, perhaps, or should I (or we?) try a hand an an Signpost Op-Ed? Or do you think I am overreacting, and the policy is fine as it is? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently on holidays but happy to take a look in a bit. With respect to deleting a banned users contributions, IMO one needs to use common sense. If they were banned for copyright violations and it is assumed that the rest of their edit are also have copyright issues, sometimes we will delete large amount of their prior content as there is simply not the volunteer time to go through them all individually. With respect to undisclosed paid editors it is generally one account one job. In that case deleting for a few months hinders them getting paid and if fully applied could address a fair bit of paid editing. If it was decent content added in good faith I would not support its blanket removal. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

World Benzodiazepine Awareness Day
'From Margaret Braithwaite10/7/16 on my email which is in my maiden name -mlongworth43@gmail.com I am the wife of an involuntary benzo prescription addict who was brought off too fast (3 weeks ) after being prescribed lorazepam for 2 and a half years. The doctors concerned are being investigated by the GMC. I CAN`T UNDERSTAND WHY Wikipedia is objecting to World Benzo Day having a website on Wikipedia;surely it fulfils the criteria for disseminating knowledge about these dangerous drugs ;knowledge which can help sufferers to combat the isolation and lack of knowledgE generally in the medical profession. I know this from experience. A lso whAt we don`t have in this country is a national helpline and specialist withdrawal centres.The BMA HAVE ASKED FOR THESE. It horrifies me that a lone doctor should object to sufferers having a site that could give them some markers for getting help'I think he must be unaware of the intensity of the suffering from neuropathic symptoms which don`t respond to medication. hE SHOULD SEE TH PROMMOTION VIDEO :-W-BAD. dO TRY TO SEE IT YOURSELVES AND YOU WILL SURELY REVISE YOUR OPINION'Bold text''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.135.113 (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We are based on indepedent sources. This is what justifies if content should be included on Wikipedia. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Visual impairment intracranial pressure syndrome
Doc, I started Visual impairment intracranial pressure syndrome, but I am under enormous time pressures right now and I don't have time to continue working on it today (or in fact anytime in the next few days). If you - or anybody reading this - is interested, please feel free to add content to the article. Thanks, Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Will take a look User:IjonTichyIjonTichy Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about the usage of explainer videos on Wikipedia
Dear James, I've seen that you added an explainer video by openosmosis to HIV/AIDS article. This is a great video and I'm a big fan of such videos on Wikipedia. Moreover I work for a similar non-profit simpleshow foundation that produces explainer videos on any kind of topics in collaboration with volunteer authors and experts. Usually we upload them directly to wiki commons. However as I wanted to insert them into some articles - e.g. sleep hygiene - there were many editors against them (And it seemed to me that they were against such videos in general. There are of course some other issues, but the general impression was like this =). Now, there is a discussion about it on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Simpleshow_foundation and I would really appreciate if you could share your experience and thought on this topic. Thank you in advance. Ilya --Norma.jean (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thanks User:Norma.jean. Osmosis has had concerns regarding one of their videos. They ended up redoing the video and it is now okay. Will take a look at sleep hygiene. We should likely co ordinate between the work you are doing and that Osmosis are doing so that you both do not do the same video on the same topic. Home in a week. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. We indeed also produce video on medical topics: e.g. HIV, Zika, etc., but we don't produce them only for Wikipedia, so it's ok to have same topics.=) However, I'll check the list of next topics by osmosis in order to avoid this overlaps in future. Due to the fact, that our (explainer) style is even simpler than by osmosis, the videos are especially suitable for the simple english wikipedia (see e.g. HIV/AIDS). I've got 2 questions: who is actually able to create project pages and what is needed for this? Until now I added our videos on simple english wikipedia with my account. However, due to the recent discussions would you recommend to proceed like discussed (put the video on talk page first?) Is there a COI in this case? (There were no complaints by now.) Thanks and sure you can answer when you're back from vacation =) --Norma.jean (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are fine to continue adding it to simple.en Main EN is a harder crowd to please often.
 * Anyone can create a project page. Are you wanting to create one on En Wikipedia? With respect to medical videos ping me after you place them on talk pages. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Refs on Wikidata
This idea might interest you (and all right-thinking, reference-loving Wikipedians). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool thanks. Will go try it out. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Saw you on YouTube
Great idea on translating articles related to Women's Health. How about some collaboration on deciding what topics would be on the translation list? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Being discussed here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you invited more editors to comment on this 'project'? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes a bunch are already involved. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find the 'discussions' on this document. I found that that the edits were recorded but with no edit summaries, no explanations of why my contributions were deleted and moved. Perhaps I am just too unfamiliar with using this off-wiki spreadsheet program. Who are the other medical editors involved? Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Would likely be better to discuss in a place like the talk page [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women%27s_Health/Priority_article_list here] on Wikipedia. User:FloNight is also involved. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Testosterone and Varicocele
Thank you for commenting on my page! I see that the information i added about testosterone and Varicocele was removed from the Varicocele article. While it is a controversial subject because it is not well understood how leydig cell testosterone production is compromised I have read several articles that show an improvement in testosterone level post varicocele surgery (microsurgery or emoblization). I am curious on your veiw point on how varicocele may effect testosterone and if surgery is shown to increase testosterone levels. Thanks

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27132580

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23754533

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21435152

http://www.ajandrology.com/article.asp?issn=1008-682X;year=2016;volume=18;issue=2;spage=213;epage=216;aulast=Dabaja http://urologytimes.modernmedicine.com/urology-times/news/modernmedicine/modern-medicine-news/varicocelectomy-leads-testosterone-increase-r

"The progressive negative effect of varicocele on Leydig cell function is evidenced by several reports that demonstrate an association between varicocele repair and increase in serum testosterone levels in humans "

Boilingorangejuice (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue was that it lacked a high quality reference. In fact it had no reference. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)