User talk:Doc James/Archive 2

new talk box

Doc James, This should be your first message. A nice feature is it sets up headings, moves items to end, and encourage users to people to leave the nature of their message in the subject line. The colors can be changed, I don't know the exact codes, but with a little experimenting, I have changed mine several times. More importantly, I am very pleased to see you also wanting to focus on content, as I do as well. Mark Vaoverland (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

As a courtesy notice, you have reached 3RR and risk being blocked for edit warring should you revert again.(olive (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Littleolive I have reverted your edits once and subsequently only adjusted the wording as per the consensus you can see on the talk page. Please provide diffs or remove this remark.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This was a courtesy note. You made reverts based on you position, not on agreement. Please feel free to remove this note from your page. I won't bother you again with such courtesies.(olive (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Little Olive Oil, don't you have an admitted Conflict Of Interest (COI) with TM related entries, i.e. you work for or are affiliated with a Maharishi Org, possibly MUM.edu? It's probably not a great idea for you to be editing these entries in the first place. Just a reminder.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the talk page. Just because one person disagrees does not mean that there is a lack of consensus. Cheers.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors commenting after you have reverted is hardly consensus, and I consider that a disingenuous comment.(olive (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

(undent) Please make all comments on the article talk page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Here are the diffs you requested, [1], [2][3], that's three reverts in 24 hours to the same article. WP:CON is no excuse for edit warring or violating WP:3RR - instead work it out on the talk page per Wikipedia:Consensus. That goes for both of you. Dreadstar ☥ 01:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, grammatical or not, all three of those diffs are reverts per Wikipedia:Reverting, any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. I realize your edits were in good faith and appreciate your comment about being careful - always a good thing during disputes! Dreadstar ☥ 01:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never done this before, that should be a clue. Barnstar.

		The Special Barnstar
		For excellence of contributions in spite of difficulties and obstacles. Abd (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And just so you don't take this wrong, this is what a wikitrout looks like.

Even though you have done spectacular work, largely unrecognized (though, notice, quite a few of the people criticizing you also said that they thought you could be a very good contributor, and they seem to be greatly relieved to see the probable dissolution of the fuss), it could easily come to a bad end if your editing doesn't become, shall we say, more politically skillful. I hope you can continue to contribute. Ask for help anytime. I think you also have friends in User:Vannin, User:Vaoverland, and even User:Scuro seems to have let slip some admiration or appreciation or recognition of the value of your contributions. I may have catalyzed some resolution here, but underlying that was the excellence of your research and article writing, in spite of the horrible spelling, and, in addition, your ability to back off and accept advice. Not bad. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you still qualify as a newcomer, so you aren't supposed to be wikitrouted, see [[4]]. But that's just an essay, not a guideline, even, not to mention a policy. And always remember Rule Number One and you might be interested in Rule 0 --Abd (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

e-mail

Hello, and congrats on new barnstar.

I've enabled e-mail from other users. See "toolbox" at bottom of left panel on my Talk page. Thanks. - Hordaland (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you sent it. Now I have reading matter for a while, thanks. It can't be today, however, as I have an appointment with my sleep specialist, he who is concerned about GPs throwing 3mg melatonin at every ADHD kid on the block. - Hordaland (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

re: help

No, thank you :-)

Ask if you need anything. :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving things along

Hi Jhm,

I would like to move things along at the Rfc, there are a few threads open that should be closed, your attention to these threads would be much appreciated. Can we focus our communication at the Rfc? It was I who had moved off of the Rfc to communicate with you, but that was because there was too much input there and I found all the input distracting to our goal of finding common ground. Now that the Rfc is quiet, lets move things along!

If you don't like the Rfc process as it now stands then why don't we get Xavexgoem involved and he could advise us about options and next steps. If you are happy with the process to date, I look forward to hearing from you shortly.--scuro (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

BestBETS

I don't think BestBETS satisfies WP:MEDRS enough be useful on pulmonary embolism. Could you provide a peer-reviewed source, ideally a review, to support your addition? JFW | T@lk 21:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation!

I've made a general reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Illustrations_of_symptoms as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ADHD

In response to Jmh649

I will try and help you keep balanced. I am wondering if you would not mind starting an ADHD portal so people could contribute many different varieties of knowledge on the topic? I may use the article you posted on my talk page I would just like to know if it ok with you. I think the article on ADHD would be a good starter and is very scholarly just think it would be helpful to look at the controversy in an academic way. I may interconnect the controversy topics as well and elaborate on the social aspects of disability through using disability studies. Right now I think this is mostly speculation for me.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy forviolating the revert restriction imposed atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Jmh649 restricted, as provided for by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Enforcement by block, based on the evidence submitted at WP:AE (permanent link). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you maycontest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein 12:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Was unaware what the sanctions required. I considering changing text to something the reference does not say vandalism.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling that you might get blocked Doc. I don't think scuro was without sin and did try to alert the arbcom of this but as it was not a direct breach of arbcom sanctions it looks like my submission will not result in sanctions on scuro. If you had pointed out the misrepresentation of the source on talk page, I or someone else would have resolved it. I resolved it anyway and properly represented the source.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks LG. As discuss before changes was a requirement of the arb decusion is his lack of decussion not justification for a block? Anyway will be busy for a few weeks.--Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 18:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No it is not, see link on your block notice, which is why I think that we may have to reopen the arbcom or request an ammendment. I think that all that can be done is just deal with things and if disruptioon continues or escalates then we will have to resubmit evidence and request ammendment. I think that we have to wait for the mentor to come on and see if they help things.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It says here that "Should Scuro exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Scuro may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Scuro in removing "general" without discussion failed to discuss a content reversion.--Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 04:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

File a request for enforcement or else add comments and evidence to my existing submission (if it remains open).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Acute decompensated heart failure

On 13 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Acute decompensated heart failure, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYKBot (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Formatting template for you

You might be interested in the {{-}} template. If placed just before (any object), it makes sure that the page is clear from left to right before displaying the object. This could save you some trouble with adding bunches of blank lines to get things to line up correctly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Vasoplegic syndrome

A tag has been placed on Vasoplegic syndrome requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Megaman en m (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Vasoplegic syndrome

First write your article in a software like Microsoft Word, or put a construction tag on top of the article so we know that this is an unfinished article in progress.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You can make a construction tag by doing this: {{type"construction"here}}.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I added a construction tag on the article.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, bestBETS

James, could we please discuss the suitability of BestBETS on WP:MEDRS. JFW | T@lk 12:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review question

IF you want a peer review, please respond to the question at Wikipedia:Peer review/Obesity/archive2 first. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Fitzpatrick's

Do you own the two volume Fitzpatrick's Dermatology in General Medicine, if so, what version? I ask because I am in the process of trying to make a list of all existing skin diseases with all their synonyms, and create all missing derm stubs from that list... and was looking for some help? I have already added all the diseases found in Andrews' Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology but want to cross-reference it with Fitzpatrick's and add anything that may be missing, and/or add any additional disease synonyms. kilbad (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply... to which I responded on my talk page. kilbad (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of articles

For articles you want to categorize, first create an organized "tree" outlining how you would like to categorize your articles. Post it here, lets discuss it, then take it from there. kilbad (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Benzodiazepines, flumazenil

I have rmd your unsourced addition. Please provide a ref for the proper management and then add material back. 70.137.134.30 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed same unsourced addition from "Benzodiazepine overdose" as well. Pls provide ref of proper algorithm, before adding back. 70.137.134.30 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for ref, pls put that in the benzo overdose article as well.

Browser: I am using firefox. But the concerns of iupac wrap etc (I presume what you are alluding to) arise when having wide side bars on, or generally as a portability concern. Does that answer the question? I edited a lot of articles to display correctly with the least common denominator of browsers and setting. (Using spaces to wrap iupac and references, changing to 1-column reflists). Or what was the question? 70.137.134.30 (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with 2-column reflist is, that with wide sidebars or on narrow screens one column may overlap the next. (if the display algorithm cannot wrap a line it becomes so long that it reaches into the second column) Generally I do not see a readability advantage of reflist 2, it is just less portable with the conditions I mentioned. So this is one of the changes I applied for portability. The other one, in chem/pharm articles is to make iupac wrappable by interspersing spaces (nothing fancy like zero width space unicode). Same consideration: keep it simple and max portability. 2-column is just fancy-shmancy. Greetings from the old electrician. 70.137.134.30 (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with non-wrappable items arises mainly with long embedded weblinks, which cannot be wrapped and then overlap the next column on narrow display or with sidebars. I consider reflist 1 most portable for that reason, but I understand that the print picture looks more shmancy with reflist 2. But this is mainly for online viewing and not for printout, so what do we care about the looks of printed articles so much? 70.137.134.30 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can advise on how to wrap long inline weblinks e.g. www.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx/xxxxxx/xxxxxx/xxxxxx/xxxxxx/xxxxxx.html, then we could use reflist 2 without a problem. Of course the link has still to work on click, so cosmetic edits are excluded. 70.137.134.30 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The column width trick works, but it displays refs with only 1 column, if you have sidebars on. I didn't find it necessary to get a user name. Only rarely had problems with controllettis who revert edits because they are anonymous. The recent high activity comes from my efforts to take a whole lot of chem/drug articles and edit the iupac name for line wrap, such that it doesn't blow up the chembox to huge size. (chembox /drugbox doesn't on it own know how to wrap iupac if you don't insert spaces or other recognized separators.) Of course I cannot edit ALL chemical articles, but did a nice contribution with my cosmetic improvements, which were simply mechanical repetitive work. In principle this would belong into the chembox display code. Are you sure the colwidth feature is fully portable across browsers? 70.137.134.30 (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

by sidebars on I mean: click History, click "show in side bar". 70.137.134.30 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

or click View, click "sidebar", and select either history or bookmarks being displayed as a sidebar. 70.137.134.30 (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried that on firefox now? (using firefox myself). The other problem of columns overlapping only occurs with reflist 2, when firefox automatically adjusts column width, as you vary the width of the sidebar. Try it, then you see what I mean. (you can pull the sidebar border with the cursor) Column overlap does not occur with the fixed colwidth parameter, as you proposed, as then firefox does not automatically adjust column width, but simply switches to single column display, as soon as you have sidebars on, i.e. have a variable display width. The sidebar feature of firefox seems to be part of Explorer compatibility, as it emulates the std display mode of IE. So I presume the mentioned problem (column overlap with reflist 2) will also be seen on IE. Greetings from the old electrician. Take a look at my edits if everything is ok with them, you are the professional. My IP address is 70.137.x.x, I have indeed done a whole bunch of edits, of course all very lay conjectures. 70.137.134.30 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have two nice scientific questions for you, as you are a doctor and have access to your toxicologists: 1. The rat poison pyriminil (Vacor) seems to selectively destroy pancreatic beta cells (by inhibition of a metalloprotein complex if I understand and remember correctly, leading to oxidative radical damage; may have to do with superoxide dismutase, not completely clear) Now the question: Does this mechanism make the cell more vulnerable to radiation? Can the molecule and its mechanism be used as a model for selective radiosensitizing substances against beta cell tumors? 2. There seems to be a strange connection between "peripheral benzodiazepine receptors" and an experiment with "B16/C3" mouse melanoma cultures, where peripheral agonists increase melanogenesis. (Some ref found in the benzo articles) Does this mean we have a substance (small molecule, crossing BB barrier) with particular affinity for melanoma cells at hand? If yes, does it make sense to do experiments with an attached alkylating agent, as seen in the estramustine, to get a selective alkylating agent attacking melanoma cells? In particular brain metastases? (I do not intend to try this at home, just for the intellectual interest) 70.137.134.30 (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That Vacor got discontinued is not a problem, I really don't try that at home. Was just curious if the mechanism has ever been looked at for radiosensitization. The mouse melanoma: I noticed while following the refs of the benzo articles (some articles were disfigured by faulty citations, so I brought the abstracts up one by one and compared if the citations were plausible), that there has been some research into selective "peripheral benzodiazepine agonists" and the mouse melanoma experiment was one of them. I am aware that this is in the glass tube with the mouse cells only. But if it carries over, then you could use such substances as a radiolabeled substance to find metastses in imaging, and you maybe could proceed to make a selective alkylating agent. Just the editing of the articles is a good training for my old brain and is much fun. Thank you for the answers. Maybe ask some glass tube researchers of your university if this leads itself to some term project to do with students.

(I am just an old electrician, but very interested in bio- and medical electronics and future ideas) 70.137.134.30 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And indeed I realized how many questions there are without answers, and infinitely much work to do. But from working in R&D for 35 years I also know that there are infinitely many answers without the questions to ask for them. We have just to bring them together. 70.137.134.30 (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbaric medicine

Hi, I saw the cri-de-coeur in your edit summary in Hyperbaric medicine. The IP user, 165.228.190.54, who added those refs is new and I suspect he copied or adopted the layout from WP:CIT (as I did when I started). It doesn't show the horizontal method there, nor does {{cite journal}} give the advice that horizontal is preferred - which I am sure it is. I suspect the real problem is lack of guidance for new editors, Anyway, thanks for cleaning it up. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Obesity

Hi, I replied to your note on my talk page. delldot ∇. 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor suggestions

Nice work expanding the Obesity article. Two minor suggestions; try using the edit summary more often, other than just "updating" (though I just noticed that I forgot an edit summary in my last edit, oops!). Second, consider using the "Preview" function to avoid needing to do lots of incremental edits. I've been guilty of both of these myself, but both actions make dealing with article histories much easier. Thanks, and keep up the good work! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review: Gastritis

Thank you very much for the review. The Manual of Style, well, I didn't really know about it. I will fix this and all the other problems whenever I compile enough research to do so. Once again, thank you for such a quick review.--Llamoedu (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Obesity review

Hi Jhm, got your note requesting a review of the Obesity article. I'd be happy to look it over for you, with a few caveats. I can't honestly say I'm an expert on featured article guidelines, and unlike yourself, I don't have a doctorate in medicine. On the other hand, I have enough experience with writing for sciences in general (psychology, computing, bioinformatics) that I might have some useful feedback. Better yet, my fiance is an exec editor for a healthy lifestyles website, so I could have her take a peek at it as well. Let me know when you think it's ready for a review and I should be able to do so within a week of the notification. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Perhaps you're a mind reader. How'd you know I need a pick-me-up just today? Many thanks! - Hordaland (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

More maps

Made the following maps which might also be of interest. /Lokal_Profil 03:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Energy consumption 2001-2003
• 
  Energy consumption 1989-1991
• 
  Energy consumption 1979-1981
• 
  Protein consumption 2001-2003
• 
  Protein consumption 1989-1991
• 
  Protein consumption 1979-1981
• 
  Fat consumption 2001-2003
• 
  Fat consumption 1989-1991
• 
  Fat consumption 1979-1981

Creating some dermatology stubs

I wanted to know if you would help me create some dermatology stubs as you have several very good dermatology texts? I have been trying to create articles on all the different dermatology conditions, but am finding I am in need of some help. I can give you more details if you are interested. Thanks again. kilbad (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am currently working to make the list of skin diseases complete. I have added all the diseases Andrews' contains, and am about one third the way through Fitzpatrick's two volume set. Therefore, while the list is not complete yet, I am getting there.
• Where you can help is with the section epidermal nevi, neoplasms, cysts. Creation of any article that is currently a red link would be greatly appeciated! kilbad (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica

I'm in the process of addressing the concerns you listed on OFC's talk page. However, you state,

It says "Bone x-rays can also be used to diagnose the disease, though results can be inconclusive." This is followed by "Radiographs distinctly show bone resorption". Here is what emedicine says: "In severe cases, plain films reveal the classic bone finding, osteitis fibrosa cystica. It consists of bone cysts with or without pathologic fractures. These cysts are also known as brown tumors."

While I agree that the notion that my Radiology section needs rewording and potentially fact-checking, the eMedicine article that you chose to cite specifically discusses Parathyroid carcinoma, which is only one potential cause of OFC, and hence, isn't directly related to my statement. Osteitis fibrosa can be detected on x-rays, though it can sometimes be confused with conditions such as osteoperosis. The eMedicine article you cited implies that though x-rays will detect brown tumors, indicitive of OFC, there will not be a differentiation between OFC caused by hyperparathyroidism and Parathyroid carcinoma. Strombollii (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the formatting of that comment, I can't seem to get rid of the box that seems to be encapsulating my comment, and I'm really not sure why it's there.

Also, do you have full access to http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112701262/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 ? If possible, is there any way I could get a description of what the full text consists of, or possibly an edit from you to the FNA section of the article? I'd like to expand, but am having trouble Strombollii (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

science

Do you think we should stop giving crisps and chis to young children?

Can obesity effect our gens, can it corrup it?

Is it always a tren, that the more you eat the higher intake of calories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.111.204 (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

early psychosis

have started a new entry on early intervention in psychosis. still in early stages - but your help appreciated, as this new branch of psychiatry is evidence that psychiatry is only just being to approach the concept of prevention

Larsen TK, Friis S, Haahr U, et al. (2001). Early detection and intervention in first-episode schizophrenia: a critical review. Acta Psychiatr Scand, 103, 323–334. Earlypsychosis (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you need to know the cause of psychosis before embarking on intervention to prevent psychosis. see the talk pageEarlypsychosis (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Benzo overdose

Hi Jmh, a merge proposal has be placed on the benzodiazepine overdose talk page. I see that you created the page so you may like to add your views.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Brown-Sequard syndrome

Thanks for your help. I agree that Case studies of Brown Sequard, as a separate article is probably correct. Some of these editors on Wiki give me dyspepsia, a headache and chest pain! A E Francis (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Case studies of Brown-Sequard syndrome

I have nominated Case studies of Brown-Sequard syndrome, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case studies of Brown-Sequard syndrome. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. JFW | T@lk 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have one question to ask: If the article on Brown-Sequard is deleted, what is accomplished? If the editors of Wiki keep running off those who can write intelligently on subjects, who is left? A E Francis (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the credibility of Wikipedia is being destroyed by a bunch of egomaniacal morons, hiding behind pseudonyms, posing as editors. I am not saying this about you. I appreciate your help. But it begs the question: who is going to put in all the work it takes to write articles, only to have them deleted? A E Francis (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind and consoling words. I have written more than 20 articles for Wiki, and enjoy doing so. It seems that there is always the eventual storm with some editors. Maybe I am in the wrong place. I really don't know much about wiki books or wikiveristy. Maybe that is where I belong. You know, as Zollinger of Zollinger-Ellsion syndrome wrote, "There is only one reason to write, and that is to learn." I have generally found this to be true. If you write it down and publish somewhere, it helps with critical thinking. Anyway, I will investigate the other parts of Wiki. Thanks again. A E Francis (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Doc Jim: I want to thank you for trying to resolve the issues with Brown-Sequard syndrome. I can tell you are a real healer. However, I thought you might be interested in reading an e-mail I received from a psychiatrist in Utah concerning the editing of Brown Sequard syndrome: "I just took a look at the article history...what a mess! And what is that "bored admin" change?? You know, what I am seeing reinforces my concern about the whole system...well-informed, reliable information can be lost in the shuffle of personality/power trips, and BS can rise to the top. Maybe that is too simple and crass, but it makes it hard for me to trust the wiki system. Maybe there is some other forum out there that would better respect what you have to offer..."

I have received many similar e-mails concerning the recent deletion of the case material from Brown-Sequard. I am publishing this message on every relevant blog. This message isn't meant for you. But it is telling about that many have come to regard Wiki as either unreliable, written at a 10 year old comprehension level, or worse, just a joke. I have many e-mails telling me this. I care about Wiki, as I know you do. That is why I am posting this for you to read. A E Francis (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

:)

The tool you sent me for formatting references looks like more trouble than it's worth but thanks anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snailgoop (talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

APA Style References

When I reference an article, I use APA style. There are several different ways to reference a scholarly article. In my opinion, APA style is the most appropriate given the topic. Furthermore, while you might cringe at the use of personal pages as a reference on Wikipedia, I disagree that using a personal page of a top authority such as Barkley is insufficient for the purposes of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snailgoop (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

not sure what to do with this

this looks like WP:ADVERT on a talk page Talk:Preventive medicine Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity

I sent you an email about this.

Before you came along we were already trying to resolve the NPOV debates about this article. I just don't like how you completely modified the article, removing cited statements, without discussing it on the talk page.

You can find all your sources at www.fqresearch.com, or you contact Dave at fqresearch.org, he is one of the article's main contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesLockson (talk • contribs) 10:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

Please leave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davidtfull a message. He is the expert in this field, and contributed most of the article. I am just here to edit and improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesLockson (talk • contribs) 11:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Obesity

Please see my request at Talk:Obesity and leave a response there. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-15 16:58Z

You better stop feeding your face b/c you're a big boy! --Mark Lessig (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Medical procedure

If you had a moment, I wanted to know if I could get your feedback concerning guidelines for articles about medical procedures? I posted a thread at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Guidelines_for_articles_relating_to_medical_procedures. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

NEJM paper about the paleo diet

"In 1985, Melvin Konner and S. Boyd Eaton, an associate clinical professor of radiology and an adjunct associate professor of anthropology at Emory University, published a key paper on Paleolithic nutrition in the New England Journal of Medicine,[PMID 2981409] which allowed the dietary concept to gain mainstream medical recognition." Although it was written by the proponents of the paleo diet, I'm guessing it is being oversold; the wide variation in the nature of the references citing it makes me think the paper was of a descriptive nature—there's practically no paper citing it which evaluates the "paleo diet" as an intervention. Sadly this NEJM paper is too old to be online; I'm not feeling motivated enough spend the time to read it off paper (I have access, but it's inconvenient time-wise). Given that no details from this paper are provided in the wiki article, I'm gessing User:Phenylalanine did not read it either. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That statement is sourced. "The idea gained medical recognition in 1985, when Drs. S. Boyd Eaton and Melvin Konner published "Paleolithic Nutrition: A Consideration of Its Nature and Current Implications," in the New England Journal of Medicine."[5] -- User:Phenylalanine

That was not the main concern; the main issue is finding out what they said in the paper that got accepted by NEJM. Anyway, it's mostly moot since there's 1997 paper by the same authors which restates their position here (it's free I think, I can email it if needed). So there's not much need to read the electronically-unavailable NEJM '85 paper to find out what their assertions were. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this is a nice comment/advice: "If you look at people who lose weight and keep it off, they are physically active. ... If you really want to go Paleo, get rid of all the electronics. Paleo guy didn't have any wires coming out of his ears." Xasodfuih (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The affiliations of Eaton and Konner are quite interesting: Department of Anthropology and Department of Radiology for the former, and Anthropology plus Psychiatry for the latter. You'd think they could do some controlled experiments instead of just theorizing over this for two decades.

Also, looky, another group that usually publishes in this area just published a new observational study on Feb 11. This one was on healthy guys. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for finding that study. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Paleolithic diet#Recent changes

Hi Doc James, could you address the points I raised on the talk page. Thanks. Phenylalanine (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, James. Thank you for your sensible and well-reasoned approach to "Fluoroquinolone toxicity". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		To Jmh649, for ensuring Wikipedia's standard of quality and reliability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting the fluoroquinolone page. You deserve a gold star from Bayer and Ortho-McNeal Bonnie32 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for your supporting message on my talk page. I'm glad you feel the same way. To be honest, I'm too frustrated with this article to be editing. They have just a lot more time than me and for the moment, I'm having some personal issues and too much work in real life to get involved as heavily as would be necessary. It's also very frustrating that they are using sockpuppets like Bonnie32 (talk · contribs) here. But once things settle down again I'll pick up editing and maybe we can support each other and there will be more balance. Personally, I feel it would be better for now if we let them make some useful contributions for a change and just leave the NPOV-tag, which basically makes their entire rambling useless. If you feel like fighting this, I would focus on quinolone and the articles on the different kinds, removing all NPOV there with an edit summary that it should be discussed in the main quackery article. This is an improvement that can be made in a relatively short time, I think. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think listing it for deletion now would be a good idea; we should first try to make more of an effort to try to reach a consensus, although it would take a lot more time. Many people will vote keep if they see that it is mainly a NPOV-problem, they will think we are only interested in winning an edit war. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome on my page. What side effects have you seen? Hope I am posting correctly. Bonnie32 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that will be happening soon. I've asked WT:PHARM to clean up individual articles; best direct all problems into a single article like this. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the message you left makes no sense. Bonnie32 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thee cases I have seen include: One case of tendinitis that resolved spontaneously and Two cases of a interaction with warfarin.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My husband was not on Warfarin. Coming up on 3 years I would not say this resolved spontaneously.

What area do you practice in?

Could you please send me any other studies you are reciting from. Or just those 3 you quoted.

Bonnie32 (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way having a serious infection such as a ruptured appendix can cause ongoing problems. Encluding weakened tendons. Ruptured tendons are however know to occur more frequently in those with severe infections.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually ruptured tendons are more frequent in those who take fluoroquinolones. I do not want to argue with you. You are the one who came along and called the entire Wiki page GARBAGE.

You still not have told us what line of practice you are in.

You will not find me on the forums. I was trained to follow medical studies. I don’t jump on the forums. I do admit to peek now and then. I believe you need to keep an open mind. I am thankful that I am in New York working with trained medical staff that think out side of the box. You can actually walk into an office and be bombard with medical advertisements. Not a single pen, clipboard, stapler, clock, bed sheeting, etc.

I had looked forward to socialized medicine. If it takes away free thinking, NO THANK YOU. I’ll pay out of pocket.

Bonnie32 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To put in my 2c about the whole fluoroquinolone article thing, thank you so much for bringing some sense to the article. I tried to contribute, but each time I did, I realised my contributions made me look like some sort of hideous troll that should belong under a bridge and not on Wikipedia. I dread the day someone starts an Aminoglycoside toxicity syndrome page. Though to be fair, if any class of antibiotics deserves one of these pages, it's that one. Thanks, and on an aside, I have no idea how Bonnie32 equates social medicine with brainwashing? I would have thought, in a purely capitalist society, doctors are more likely to get into bed with big pharm? Anyway, totally off topic. Thanks very much for keeping wikipedia the number 1 dirty secret of all medical students. 11:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A peace pipe

Admittedly, not a great pic.

• Doc, I really appreciate your work, but you also have to see that someone that may have suffered a 1:100,000 severe adverse reaction will feel hurt by associating his experience with WP:FRINGE. Labels like that should be reserved for claims like "the world's healthiest diet". I prefer to use WP:WEIGHT to give the proper/lesser weight to case reports.

• Bonnie32, Doc James is not a shill for some Big Pharma. Please take some time to review his contributions here, which speak for themselves—and are really the only thing that matters on the wiki. He doesn't have to tell you where he's working etc. He's already more open about his identity than others here. People have been seriously harassed in real life from info disclosed on this wiki, so please stop asking for more than he's willing to disclose on his own.

Xasodfuih (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

TCA abuse, discontinuation

DocJames, can you please take a look at my talk page, where I have a discussion with Sceptical Chymist. Do you think the standpoint I am expressing there is tenable and does not contain gross misunderstandings and misrepresentations on my side? Thank you in advance. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! There is surprisingly little to be found about TCAs. The ones I found describe rebound against the anticholinergic and sedative/antiadrenergic action, and describe it as benign and self limiting. The newer short lived SSRIs would give additional effects. Just wanted to make sure that I am not talking complete bogus before editing the article. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

citecheck benzodiazepine overdose

In this article I put a citecheck tag before a section claiming an extraordinary role of temazepam in US death statistics. I pulled the statistics from the poison centers site and couldn't confirm. The direct sources cited in the article require subscription. Can you check? I suspect this is one of the many (mentally ill) misrepresentations from the old temazepam article, which we discovered and removed. Most relied on pure phantasy, but were mixed with real data and thereby disguised. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, no work required. I got blocked for perfectly good edits. 70.137.146.36 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fluoridation map added

Thanks for your comment in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation. To try to fix the map problem I created Image:Water-fluoridation-extent-world-equirectangular.svg and added it to Water fluoridation #Use around the world. Further comments welcome. Eubulides (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fad diets

The official word seem to be that diets don't have anything to do with science. Oh, well, we fought the good fight. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

World map was added to Water fluoridation

Unfortunatly becase it depicts both natural and artificial fluoridation to optimal levels using the same color, it appears to have confused one reviewer. Your take on this would be appreciated (see the comments at the very end of the FAC page. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to alleviate the problem by adding text about countries like Gabon, and added comments to this effect at the FAC page. I second the request for a take on this; another pair of eyes would be appreciated. Eubulides (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Quinolone antibiotics

Why are there two articles by the same editor, Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones and Fluoroquinolone toxicity, basically pushing the same POV? He seems to be infecting all the articles in that class Category:Quinolone antibiotics. Should not, at the very least, those two articles be merged? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not it's not the same POV. See huge discussion on WT:PHARM and WT:MED. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you recreated Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones with the best of intentions, but actually having a content fork makes it more difficult to resolve issues with an article. The concensus emerging on the talk page of Fluoroquinolone toxicity appears to be that the articles should be merged. Inasmuch as there are issues that cannot be solved by harmonious editing, the best approach in this stage is a Request for comments on the article. SD (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidoc

Your trust in Wikidoc honors you. But Wikidoc links/copies a version of Temazepam article, in which we have found a harrowing number of misrepresented sources and plain forgery. Look at WP Temazepam and archives of the related talk to see what I mean. I really mean harrowing. The article relied on plagiarism and free invention to a good part, and I am shocked that this version is being used as the golden standard at Wikidoc. (left the editor in chief a note) 70.137.184.193 (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidoc is currently a copy and past from wikipedia. I do not trust it any more than what we have hear. Which unfortunately is very little.

I do however agree that most articles should only be edited by registered users. Unregistered user edits should be screened and those who vandalize should be immediately blocked. Warning are stupid and silly. Cheers

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is a copy of temazepam 1 year ago, and later proofreading turned out it is full of shit... 70.137.184.193 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are getting at?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This:[[6]]

Read it. We removed 50% of the article, as it was full of shit. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know there is a lot of garbage on wikipedia and wikidocs. Wikidocs has a better protection policy though. But wikipedia is just so much better well known. I think there are a lot more editors here. Do you edit at wikidocs 193? The two groups really need to work together.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Personality rights

Thanks for your many contributions to Wikipedia. I want to make you aware, though, that I've flagged three of your images^1,2,3 for potential personality rights issues, which is a matter completely independent of copyright. If you have a release from the pictured individuals for global redistribution and commercial publishing of their portraits, you probably should document that somehow. Although they do contribute greatly to the subject articles, I know that I personally would be spitting mad if I went for treatment of an ailment and later found pictures of my ailing self on Wikipedia and all its clones. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is for pictures lacking clarity on this point — they could be removed from the articles, which would be a shame. --Kbh3^rdtalk 19:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The people in this images have given there consent for use.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's good to know, and thanks for the longer note on my talk page. I think if you replace the {{personality}} template on the images' description page with a simple statement that you do have permission to publish, all will be well. It's a legitimate issue, but it doesn't seem to garner the attention that copyright issues do, and that template makes it sound like the onus is completely on you, not Wikipedia/Wikimedia. IANAL and couldn't say for sure. But a simple statement of permission should keep other pedants like myself at bay. Thanks again for your contributions and for the reply. --Kbh3^rdtalk 00:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

new enforcement action for breaking two revert restriction

You will find the request here.[7]--scuro (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe ·EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of WikiSurgery

I have nominated WikiSurgery, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiSurgery. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure

A new user has asserted copyright over the image used on this page. I thought you'd like to know. Cheers, Verbal chat 14:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not add this image to Wikipedia or even originally link it to this page. I just returned what was originally there after it was deleted without discussion.Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 18:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hassles scale for students

Hi, I'm not sure if it was you who leaked the other test, but if it was could publish the Hassles scale for students as well? Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help

I am working on a manual of style for dermatology-related articles at MOS:DERM, this after discussing it at the main MOS page. With that being said, I wanted to know if you would help me develop it, particularly the creation of a suggested list of sections for articles about cutaneous diseases (similar to what is found at the general medicine MOS, but tailored to cutaneous conditions, and better written)? I understand if you are busy, but wanted to see what you thought. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia!

age of the mutation

"The ΔF508 mutation is estimated to be up to 52,000 years old" <-- surely the mutation is as old as the gene. Does this really mean something like, "positive selection for this mutation may have started 50,000 years ago"? Italic text

Note

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rorschach test has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, –xeno^talk

Mediation Request

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning ADHD has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/ADHD and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review}