User talk:Doc James/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

V and MEDRS

There's discussion about a proposed change to WP:V which may affect WP:MEDRS that might interest you. See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Academic and media sources. The current proposal, #4, is towards the end.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see were this will affects WP:MEDMOS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's right. It's an RS issue, not an MOS issue.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

bedbug bite and immigration as vector

What you wrote on the article's talk page and on my talk page seem to conflict. On the article's talk page, you say you agree. On my talk page, you write:

Here is the direct quote "International travel, immigration, changes in pest control practices, and insecticide resistance may have contributed to a recent resurgence of this blood-sucking insect in developed countries.1, 3

But the footnoted sources [1] and [3] actually make no mention of immigration.

I'm fine with saying that a lot of people blame immigration and immigrants -- that's a fact. But if so, we've also got to say that more authoritative sources on bedbug resurgence haven't singled out immigration as a factor worthy of mention. Yakushima (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes and to that I agree.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Ronk01's talk page.
Message added 18:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia IRC

Hello again, I'm just here to recommend that you start using the wikipedia IRC channel. It's a great way to interact with other users also it would be cool to have a ER doc to annoy talk to in general. Their would be so many uses for you, a doctor and admin. Also you could make a live IRC collaboration channel for participants to corroborate in real time. Hope you consider it :) Peter.C • talk 02:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit a great deal during nights when not busy at work. Thus have limited access to IRC. Also feel it is best to keep discussion on wiki. Makes things easier to follow ( and they are hard enough to follow as they stand now.) WRT medical stuff though feel free to drop me notes on my user page. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hehe that works for me. Know a site like this that is licensed in CC?Peter.C • talk 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

MedFriendly

your proposed deletion is inappropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zewups (talk • contribs) 06:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi James,

Excuse the faux pas...

I supposed that what was good for the goose was good for the gander.

I stand corrected.

I was very surprised to see that CNS Ayurveda Chikitsalayam & Research Center was allowed promote their products and services at their hospital in Kerala on wiki... and since that was being allowed, I reasoned that since their are doctors doctors are in India, and our doctors in India... that it was fair game.

The only difference is that ours practice online.

I am sure you have a good reason that our doctors are not allowed to promote their practice on Wiki, and I will just have to accept that.

I have come to learn in life that not much about it is fair.

BTW... the personal physician of HH The Dalai Lama's practiced online before his demise a few years ago.

Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.17.233 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is an encyclopedia. We limit commercial content as we must to keep things from getting out of control. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cardiac Electrophysiology Book

I would appreciate your input on the Wikipedia book I've put together here. Thanks! Ronk01 talk 03:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

• From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost

• News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes

• In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories

• Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

RFARB

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Transcendental Meditation 3, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Seems perfectly reasonable. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Pseudomembranous colitis

Nice image! :-) Nephron  T|C 03:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the pathologists at work offered to donate some of his images and this is one of them. I will send along your appreciation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hey, could I get a look at the deleted page KG-1, if the title is what I think it is, it might make a useful addition to our hematology and oncology articles. (You can e-mail the Wikitext to me at wp.ronk01@gmail.com) Thanks! Ronk01 talk 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Will see what I can do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. (hey, have you seen File:Hyperlipidaemia - lipid in EDTA tube.jpg|thumb|this image? The numbers in the description almost gave me a heart attack! Ronk01 talk 02:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Testicular torsion Change

Why did you delete my post about TT occuring in 1/160 males and mark it as vandalism? If you actually read the reference, it says "The risk of a male developing torsion of the testis or its appendix by the age of 25 is about 1 in 160". You have done this before to multiple editors for the exact same edit, once claiming "not what ref says", when it is clearly in the reference. 1/4000 is very different from 1/160 and it is very misleading and irresponsible that you reverted this edit. On top of that, you mark my post as vandalism, defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Even if this information was incorrect, you marking this as vandalism is not appropriate and doesn't follow the Wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.213.193 (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read the abstract it says "The risk of a male developing torsion of the testis or its appendix by the age of 25 is about 1 in 160" If one looks just at testicular torsion and not torsion of the testicles appendix the rate is 1 in 4000. Have added a better ref.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

GAN Articles

Well, I took a look at my editor review (which I though was as stale as a...um... <insert medical joke here></>) and you said you have some articles I could help to get them up to GAN's, can you send them my way? Thanks! Peter.C • talk 01:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

On my talk page you said you can help me find refs? I think I will dedicate my time and energy on scabies. The one issue is the most recent source I have with information on that is from 1999. Thanks! Peter.C • talk 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey

If you're not already having a bad day, then I think that you might be able to contribute to this discussion. In the category of "fair warning", this appears to be just the latest battle in an ongoing war against academic experts who hold the "wrong" (meaning: mainstream) POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Will look when at home. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Antipyretics

Deletion of the Cochrine article was due to the lack of valid research done by the author of the article. This article only takes data from other articles and attempts to apply statistical methods to said data. While they may have done the math to establish a 95% confidence interval, the process for getting the data in the first place was biased and thus renders the study useless. There are simply too many possible ways for confounding variables to mess up a study of this kind. Acetaminophen is widely considered to be the first choice for treating fever in children, so it would be more convincing if the Cochirine article were replaced with one that involved primary research.

The Cochrine article does appear to have some good sources cited within it, so it may be worth the effort to read them and see if the primary research could help with this article. The article cites another article that establishes acetaminophen as one of the most commonly used antipyretics, so it should probably be added back to the list (maybe after one of us has read the referenced article).

Why delete the Yaffe article? It may not have a very informative abstract, but the full text contains some very relevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.194.229 (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia works. Cochrane is the foremost evidence based group in the world and their conclusions are much more sound than that of primary research. Please read WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not Strictly related to Wikipedia, but interesting nonetheless

I was working in the ER (we just lost one of our ER docs to an MI), and a thirty y/o Caucasian male walks in with this horrible cough and moderate dyspena. He was a smoker, so I thought it might just be smokers cough. But when I did a mirror laryngoscopy, I noticed hyphae on his glottis. I though he might have some sort of fungal pneumonia, so I ordered a CXR (you can probably tell that it's been a while since I've done anything clinical) Instead of seeing lobar fungal masses, I saw a steeple sign. I had a thirty y/o with croup. (Technically fungal laryngotracheitis). Thought you'd find it interesting, since you're an ER doc. (I cut out a bunch of stuff, so if it looks choppy, that's probably why). Ronk01 talk 01:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cultures came back positive for a fungal infection? Per the diagnosis here [1] bacterial trachitis can look like croup but never heard of a fungal case, not that that means much.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Aspergillis. The cultures just came back today (This happened last Saturday.) I wasn't sure of the diagnosis at first, so I ordered a full micro workup (blood agar, soy tryptic, potato, etc.) and the only abnormal results were the fungal plates. Maybe this should be included in an article somewhere. I know it's OR, but it might be valuable if I can find a source. Ronk01 talk 02:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a case you should get published.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I might if I can get the patient's consent. Ronk01 talk 03:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

• News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more

• In the news: Wikimedia moves into India, critical conference, Vandalism detection contest

• WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

CCSVI treatment

James, you have to agree that angioplasty/stenting are treatments of CCSVI. Your last eliminations of information about treatment in Kuwait force me to think that you are deliberately sacrificing evidences for the sake of your personal opposition of treating CCSVI. I hope I am wrong. I respect your personal views but in Wikipedia we should carefully reflect the sources. And the sources are not only Cochrane reviews, review papers and publications in medical journals. These sources are important but they are not exclusive. If you have doubts about my qualification in saying that, I've done a postgraduate course at Oxford University in Evidence-Based Health Care and I have publications in The Lancet about large clinical trials in neurology/vascular pathology. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Angioplasty is ineffective, since restenosis is very common, but stenting shows some promise. However, risk-benefit for any EV treatment of CCSVI has yet to be determined, as trials are ongoing. The complications are serious, and the effectiveness has yet to be determined. I wouldn't recommend it to any of my MS referrals. Ronk01 talk 15:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ronk01, could you elaborate on complications, please. What are they and how ofter they happen. We may have different information. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly hemorrhagic stroke, floating stents, and a high rate of restenosis. I actually operated on a patient who had been stented, I had to remove it from one of the aortic sinuses. Ronk01 talk 16:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My sincere respect! But how often does this happen? Restenosis after ballooning is about 50% within a year, right? That's why stents are used. Do you recon that jugular vein angioplasty/stenting are more dangerous than some of routine plastic surgeries? Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, restenosis is about 50% w/in one year. Incidence of specific complications is generally dependent of the type of patient, and more research is needed to make definitive statements. Some types of plastic surgery are dangerous, but without sufficient data, it is difficult to make comparisons. The patient I mentioned was my only stent patient, I haven't seen any others. I am sure some of the preliminary data are available from some of the ongoing studies, that might be an avenue for investigation. Ronk01 talk 17:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been complications, but rare - that's the point. For the other point - improvement of the patients' psychoological state during waiting for the procedure see my talk page[[2]] (and its better to continue the thread there). Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a good holiday

At the edition rythm of some articles I believe I am going to miss you... Have fun. --Garrondo (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Seed

Hi. I got your message in response to my article request on pre-seed. I had previously made up an article titled Pre-Seed (my first article on wikipedia) but it got deleted because they said it sounded too much like advertising. I could see a few spots where it might sound like that, and I asked if I could edit the article and try again, but they wouldn't let me. If you can get access to that article and look over it to see what can be changed to get it published, we sure would appreciate it. Here are some links you asked for to a few published articles that talk about Pre-Seed:

Effect of Vaginal Lubricants on Sperm Motility and Chromatin Integrity: A Prospective Comparative Study. Fertility & Sterility. 2008 Feb;89:375-379 [3]

Optimizing Natural Fertility. Fertility & Sterility. 2008 Nov;90(Suppl 3):S1-S6 [4]

Dyspareunia and Vaginal Dryness after Breast Cancer Treatment. SRM Sexuality, Reproduction & Menopause. 2008 Aug;6:18-22. [5]

Pre-Seed is also recommened in several best selling books, including Taking charge of your fertility which is referenced in many wikipedia articles. Links to a couple of these books:

Taking Charge of Your Fertility. Toni Weschler, MPH © 2006. [6]

Making Babies. Sami S. David, MD & Jill Blakeway, LAC © 2009. [7]

Perfect Hormone Balance for Fertility. Robert A. Greene, MD © 2008. [8]

Pre-Seed is also sold as an external lubricant Pré®. Pré has been noted to be the “safest water soluble lubricant” in a recent study by Magee-Womens Research Institute.

Safety and Anti-HIV Activity of Over-the-Counter Lubricant Gels. International Microbicide Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 2010. [9]

If you would like to see a quick synopsis of these articles, plus a number of others, you can go to INGfertilities website under the Clinical Studies tab. Here you can click on a study title, and see full abstract and citation. Here is the link to the Clinical Studies page [ http://www.preseed.com/clinical-studies.html]

If you can look this over and let me know what you think, I would really appreciate. We would really like to get our article published as we feel it is encyclopedia worthy, and we really were trying to make it encyclopedia worthy by including a lot of the science behind the product as well as its history, and we include many legitimate references that do not have any bias or relationship to the product or company. We certainly didn't want it to be advertising in any way. But let me know what you think. Thanks Darb8033 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Will look into this further in a week when I get home. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you delete contribution?

This contrib I believe hosts a child porn or abuse discussion forum, judging from the user's talk page and the anon ip editor's other contribution. I noticed it after seeing it on a user's talk page that I had welcomed to the project for making a constructive edit to the obsessive-compulsive disorder article (My welcome program auto watch list people I welcome to wikipedia). I deleted the link from the users talk page and my welcome message after I saw they were indefinitely blocked. Any way please delete the ip editor's contribution for obvious reasons. Thanks. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I contacted Flo for oversite and she resolved the issue.User_talk:FloNight#Oversite_help_requested--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

• News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more

• In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers

• Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle

• WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes

• Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

wats up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.62.70 (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

doc ones

hi doc....tel me hoe you doing...am jst explorin yo tigs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.62.70 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am unable to understand what you have written. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Aortic Aneurysm - Aortic Dissection LINKS

Hi there Doc,

I have an issue with you deleting my link every time I add it to a corresponding, contextually appropriate page.

The link I post is to heartosaurus.com, referencing the ritter rules, among other valuable infomation specifically related to aortic anuerysms. Furthermore, the information is extremely important as there is a wealth of information behind the link related to the "social" aspects of aortic aneurysms. This is information that is not prevalent online and much of the information on the site is very important. It is information SPECIFICALLY related to "aortic aneurysms", and I'm not sure why you keep elimnating it when you have a link to some guy's blog "aorticdissection.com" featured on the pages.

Please advise. I feel my link is very important to the topic of aortic aneurysms and dissection and is contextually important.

Regards, Benjamin J. Carey —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminJC (talk • contribs) 18:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Scrubs (clothing)

Hello,

I was wondering if you would mind taking a photos of scrubs for (well obviously) Scrubs (clothing). The first photo of scrubs looks like someone stole it from the hospital Christmas card and the other one have bad quality.

Thanks! Peter.C • talk 21:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Informal Warning

This is a courtesy warning issued prior to a formal warning per TM Arbitration:

Violations of WP:CFORK, in which you created a forked article created on the second day of an RfC, [10] without consensus and despite editor objections, [11] [12] [13] violating WP:OWN, and the TM arbitration here. [14](olive (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

It was actually you who suggested having an article exclusively about the technique and as TM refers to both the movement and the technique it is only fair to have an article on each. But I am tried. Please continue this at ArbCom as you wish. As you are under sanctions per ArbCom I view this as little more than a retaliatory effort. As the best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW all your concerns are all about a month old. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a warning. Please see it as such.(olive (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

I can't get Olive to even show what part of Wikipedia:Content forking was violated. She put the same warning on my page, without even bothering to add any links to any edits I'd made. It seems more like harassment than a serious effort at dispute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  03:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless she is able to clarify I must agree with you Will. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with this over at MedCab,treat it as nothing more than harassment. The Arbs are sensible people. Ronk01 talk 04:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration requires warning by an uninvolved editor and if the behaviour continues then an AE may be filed. Giving an editor a pre warning is not only not harassment, it is a courtesy as it precludes an official warning, is itself not official, and as such cannot be used to warn per the arbitration or to file an AE. Doc James did not extend me the same courtesy, and had I wanted to retaliate I could have held on to this warning, and had an uninvolved admin warn him.(olive (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

What behavior? You haven't shown any violation of guidelines or policies, despite repeated requests.   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

For James: I don't play games especially retaliation games. I have been disturbed by actions which seem to indicate what I hope is a lack of understanding and which impact other editors. RfCs are meant to build consensus, and aren't license to make massive edits in the face of editor objections on a second day of the RfC. Such non collaborative actions run against the TM Arbitration stipulation for good collaborative practices which affects all of us you included. I hope this helps explain why I'm giving you a "heads up" on such actions.(olive (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC))

I'll be happy Will to give you more information. I'm not editing right now but can later tomorrow.(olive (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

As you have offered please find an independent admin who shares you concerns. Otherwise please do not edit further on my talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

James, you asked for clarification. I'd be happy to stay away from your page, but then don't ask me for clarifications. Both you and Will have asked for clarification, and I've tried with out getting into a huge discussion to give that clarification. It gives me no pleasure to discuss this. Its a procedure, and one which you both wanted extended. I'm finished with it. All best wishes.(olive (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC))

No, I never got any clarification that included links to edits I'd made, or to the text of the policy, guideline, or ArbCom decision that was supposedly violated. Still waiting.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Ronk01's talk page.
Message added 01:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

• News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more

• In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution

• Features and admins: Big week for ships and music

• Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment request

I see you spend a lot of time editing here, and I have heard of you from the mainstream press (on the Rorschach test), so maybe you can provide some input on the presentation of the epidemiological, albeit sociological, results at LGBT parenting. The texts are from organizations like the American Psychiatric (or Psychological) Association, which you're probably familiar with. Some editors there, whose position I empathize with, insist on a wording that I think overstates their case, diminishing the credibility of the article, per "Don't dumb me down", although they don't seem to realize that. (I'm venturing that guess in part because a non-negligible amount of text in LGBT parenting Wikipedia article had been copied verbatim for non-free sources without quotes.) Tijfo098 (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

AORTIC external links

You know, you're not being particularly reasonable or helpful and it is becoming clear that this is not about what's appropriate for wikipedia......not sure what your problem is. You have a link to aorticdissection.com on both of the Aortic pages. How is that possible? It's a link to some guys blog. The page and external link I provided are extremely valuable and relevant and meet all of the conditions on the information you sent me. Please tell me what I need to do to get the links approved. This is not fair and i'm becoming totally turned off to wikipedia. I understand your job, but you are not being fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminJC (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the other link you mentioned should not be there and I remove them. The thing is Wikipedia is not a collection of external link. You have been attempting to add your own webpage. This is a bit of a WP:COI. Your site also contains advertising from amazon.

If we look at WP:ELNO it says "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." If you feel this article is missing stuff that would be useful to people please find a review article as a reference and add to the Wikipedia page. If you need help with this drop me a note. I will eventually get to improving the articles on the aorta.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Eosinophilia Article

I completed a major rewrite of the article Eosinophilia, but it could still use work. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions if you would be willing to offer them. Thanks! Ronk01 talk 04:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes will take a look here over the next few days. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks James. Ronk01 talk 19:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Could you please semiprotect Influenza instead? Thanks. Biophys (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I did just semi protect it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize that article was only semiprotected.Biophys (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the scrub photos! Now the article nice quality images unlike before. I was wondering if I could bother you for another photo. By any chance does your hospital have a patient-controlled analgesia unit? If so could you take a photo of it? Thanks! Peter.C • talk 10:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Will see what I can do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Tyrol5's talk page.
Message added 19:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've replied. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Seed

Hi James. I was wondering if you have had a chance yet to look into my article on Pre-Seed after I submitted all the links to other studies? We were really hoping that you might allow us to have a second chance at editing it, or even make some changes yourself that would allow it to be published. We would really appreciate your help. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to get my article published. Thank you, Darb8033 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You would need to provide me with a link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Seed

Hi James,

You asked for a link, does that mean to my article? It was actually deleted and I was told specifically that "you can refer to the deleted version at Pre-Seed - any admin will be able to see the article, and you can tell any non-admin to contact me and I can email them a copy of the article." This came from User Talk:7 when he was suggesting I post in the requested articles section. Are you able to see deleted articles? If not, could you contact User Talk:7 so he or she can email you a copy of my article? Also, you originally had asked for links to studies on Pre-Seed to show notability. Just to refresh your memory, I sent you a number of links back on Sept 29. If you can look at our article and either let us have a second chance at editing it, or let me know what changes I can make to get it published, it would be much appreciated. Thank you Darb8033 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief

• WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics

• Features and admins: A week for marine creatures

• Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review

• Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months

• Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Eosinophillia

Thank you for the comments and suggestions. The sources you referred me to are pretty good, so I think I will incorporate them into the article. I hope to GAN the article within a month or two. And depending on how bad the OR board gets today, I might get some work done today. Ronk01 talk 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Person or patient

What do we normally use, person or patient when writing an article? I was under the impression that we use person as much as possible. Thanks!!! Peter.C • talk 13:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally prefer to use patient, but I assume that there is a guideline within WP:MEDMOS that specifies on e way of another. Ronk01 talk 17:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a guideline saying that we use person. We are not writing from the POV of either physicians or people with diseases but we are attempting to write in a neutral voice.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Peter.C • talk 17:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor input requested

In trying to get a sense of where editors stand on the TM article split merge situation It would help to have a definitve statement from each editor. This is not as I see it, to determine a change but to determine whether we can agree on this important issue and if we can't to get outside help. Input here: [15](olive (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Cervical collar

Sorry if you feel like I annoy you to much about photos but I was wondering if you could get a picture of a cervical collar because the current image is a bit blurry and doesn't have enough of the collar. Thanks! Peter.C • talk 00:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries happy to help and thanks for pointing out things that Wikipedia is missing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Trauma

For some reason someone tagged Trauma (medicine) with a "This article requires authentication or verification by an expert" - all the information seems correct but since you're the guy who went through 4 years of med school and residency and I am just the EMT wannabe ;) Thanks! Peter.C • talk 11:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Boring pain

I see Doc James. I apologize for misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smodtactical (talk • contribs) 20:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

• News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

• In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

• WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

• Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Theobromine as a cough suppressant

Hi, you removed the following passage from the Wikipedia article on cough medicine. I read the study, and I don't find fault with it. What fault did you find? Marcos

A recent study performed at the Imperial College London and published in the journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) found that theobromine, a compound found in cocoa solids, can be more effective as a cough suppressant than prescription codeine. Cough suppressants, which are different from expectorants and decongestants, lessen one's urge or reflex to cough. The compound that was studied was shown to suppresses, to a degree, the "itch" signal from the nerve in the back of the throat that causes the cough reflex. It is possible to get an effective dose (1 g, though 0.5 g may be sufficient) from 50g of dark chocolate, which contains 2 to 10 times more cacao than milk chocolate. Cocoa powder contains roughly 0.1 g per tablespoon (5g). Since theobromine is not an opiate, it was free from the side effects of codeine.

The problem with the study is that it is in "guinea-pigs". Another issues is that codeine is no better than placebo wrt cough (it is a false gold standard). Thus removed that study. Wikipdia is based on review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It was a multi-part study. Humans were also studied. Codeine? Read more carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campoftheamericas (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes they also used humans "Ten healthy nonsmoking subjects". We still need a review article not a primary research study.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw that study too, it was interesting, but it cannot be used on Wikipedia as it is a primary source. Ronk01 talk 22:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

[16][17] Thank you for the skepticism. What do you think of these? Keep looking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campoftheamericas (talk • contribs) 14:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)