Misplaced Pages

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Centralized discussion Village pumps policy tech proposals idea lab WMF misc Refining the administrator elections process Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace Voluntary RfAs after resignation Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE LLM/chatbot comments in discussions For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. view edit history watch archive talk purge

Ultimatum

'Dumbledore says people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right,' said Hermione, of J. K. Rowling fame, in the Half-Blood Prince, on page ninety-five.

If you want to sell optimism and likely ultimate causes, then you will accept cancellation of your work.
If you want to sell drugs and doubt, then you will keep to your version of baby colic.
Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.152.124.107 (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is here to reflect the best available which I define as review articles and major medical textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Kelly Bonyata, a respected International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, who like wikipedia writes sourced scientific advice literature (Bachelor of Science), Cow's milk iz the most common food sensitivity for breast feeders to avoid passing on to nurslings. Like you, she haz direct experience with baby colic. Unlike you, she iz prepared to counsel mothers to read labels and avoid casseinates and whey. This research supports her counselling with the gold standard of experiemental design. You do not. Doctors like pills, because pills get results quickly and effectively when they work at all. Does that put you in a conflict of interest? I find you to be out of your field, because you practise emergency medicine, and we are talking about pediatrics. Why are you supporting your position with policy instead of science? Surely you can see that reviewers would need to be very ignorant of experimental design to say anything more than "Feeding changes usually are not advised.", which iz quite different from what you said, "Dietary changes by infants are generally not needed". Saying that physicians usually do not diet-counsel and saying that it does not need to be done are different things. Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.152.124.54 (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Simply find recent review articles in high quality sources for refs per WP:MEDRS. We must paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How came you to believe that guidelines are more authoritative than rigorous scientific method? 75.152.124.54 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Kindly go bother someone else. If out are not interested in constructive discussion find another website or start your own blog. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments adjusted here

Okay so why do we use review articles rather than primary sources here at WikiProject Medicine? Review articles generally give a better overview of all the literature on a topic. Some studies find positive results other find negative results. Good review articles take all these into account and give them proper balance. Systematic reviews are deemed to be the best source of information for specific questions. Literature reviews are better for a general overview. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day. Thanks. I started a web site and writing articles with points on USENET over fifteen years ago. I started blogging on facebook about five years ago. I only come to wikipedia when my content seems to be under attack, or when I find strong evidence for something on pubmed that really should hav more exposure. When it's more exposure for important information I want, I can usually change one line that iz already supported, and add a citation in a clause. I also fill in citation requests. I do hav persistent citations on wikipedia. I do not want to tell you where they are, because you are a deletionist with a heavy and authoritative knife. I do not blame you for trying to simplify and cut down baby colic. Unfortunately, quartering it, and cutting out my content based upon one review that found a lot of inconclusive evidence for just about everything it considered wuz too much. Perhaps you should start an independent writing career. I think your speaking career iz more useful, though, especially if there can be a greater degree of "we" in this discussion. I am not a pediatrician. I fell in with a group of wimin on facebook who are very wary of pediatricians, and who are not afraid to tell you why. 75.152.124.54 (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to ask for further opinions at WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, further opinions do not count. I do not aim to change policy, so I should hav no need to gather consensus. It seems that on this particular article, I do need to gather consensus to do a deep reversion. That iz enough work for me. Policy refers to common sense in many places. Unfortunately, common sense iz rare, people are creatures of habit, and those habits create beliefs. In this case, habit of enforcing a content guideline haz created in many people a failure to understand what constitutes rigorous scientific method, and it iz not necessarily reviews. Even textbooks contain opinions. 75.152.124.54 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please notice that the template no longer tells people to delete primary sources, even if the guideline does. This guideline runs counter to WP:PSTS, which is policy that explicitly allows primary sources. What am I supposed to do if a primary source contains risk ratios, and a review does not? 75.152.124.54 (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

For what content? Often review articles will state by how much something changes risk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Meta-analyticaL reviews calculate a summary odds ratio (SOR), which iz a risk ratio weighted for size of study. One man plus courage is a majority. I haven't even found RCTs about baby colic and chocolate, onions, or Brassica; no reviews, of course. Those are few and far between. For example, I found a meta-analysis for SIDS that means babies exclusively breastfed have a twenty-seven percent of normal risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Breastfeeding nearly quarters a baby's risk for SIDS. Recommendations from the United Nations and WHO about breastfeeding are not meta-analytical: They are popular reviews, though.172.219.255.215 (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please write normally or do not write on my talk pages. There are reviews that cover diet and colic. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your homework is piling up. My problem is more specific than diet and colic. White on black tells you more clearly who is speaking than nesting. Prove that there are reviews concerning brassica and chocolate, because I just showed evidence that there are none in searches that are one-hit wonders. 172.219.255.215 (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry not how it works. We use review articles because they show notability. If it is not commented on in a high quality secondary source it is not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Risk ratios show that, not people. Facts are not a popularity contest. Why is it important for experimenters to be ignorant of whether their subject is a control? Bohgosity BumaskiL 172.219.255.215 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

refs?

What is it that you want references for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjones008 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You should be adding refs whenever you add content. This edit for example needs a ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding alkalinization of urine and uric acid stones, I'm right. The correction I was making was the previous version reported xanthine oxidase inhibition to be the primary therapy which is wrong. The reference shows that there is dramatic melting of large stones with alkalinization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtopf (talk • contribs) 07:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay but "cornerstone of treatment"?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtopf (talk • contribs) 07:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How about "Raising the pH of the urine by potassium citrate or bicarbonate may dissolve uric acid stones"? with this ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21121431 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We however discuss it already in detail here What was wrong with this bit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Metformin

Hi Doc,

Thanks for your help with the Saxagliptin article, and with the other gliptin articles which I assume you reviewed as well.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but the most recent meta analyses I was able to find indicate no CV benefit for metformin or one that is just barely statistically significant and only in monotherapy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22517929 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22509138 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21205121.

I realize that I'm splitting hairs here over a second tier drug. But am aiming for consistency. Best Formerly 98 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes realize that there has been some backpedaling with respect to the mortality benefits of metformin. We have this 2012 AHRQ systematic review were metformin is "associated with lower all cause and cardiovascular mortality" in the conclusions. At least when compared with sulfonylureas Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure sulfonylureas are the best comparator, as they have been suspected of increasing CV mortality at least since I worked in the diabetes area in the early 1990s. Not sure if that suspicion has waned. Back then it was attributed to their property of increasing hyperinsulinemia, which was part of what set off the search for insulin sensitizers (some of which have been even worse). (ADDED NOTE: a quick pubmed search for meta analyses on "sulfonylureas cardiovascular" seems to point to an increase in CV risk relative to placebo)

I guess my point is just that since none or almost none of the anti hyperglycemia drugs reduces CV mortality, we should adopt common language and not leave the impression that particular agents are uniquely lacking in CV benefits.

What would you like to do here? I'd vote for at least adding the phrase that "few if any other anti hyperglycemic drugs improve CV outcomes". Of course I'll have to run down the references for this. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What about insulin? Do we have a ref that makes this statement? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't find anything reliable on that. Maybe hard to put patients on any sort of placebo treatment for as long as it takes to do a CV outcomes trial, and if you use a drug comparator you don't get an absolute answer. Hyperinsulinemia arising from endogenous insulin release in response to insulin resistance is certianly predictive of CV disease, but that's a little different. Formerly 98 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment removed from my talk page

Thanks for the words advising caution. Am in conversations with a few editors who share my concerns but are uncomfortable to express them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files

Some of the files that you have uploaded may be unfree. See Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2014 March 8#OTRS pending since January for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume that you mean this one Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, You may want to read this to better understand what is going on with that arbitrator. Although it is from 2008, but he's still the same man. Maybe it is not so obvious from his actions on Wiki, but emails I got from him is a clear indication that nothing has changed. Best wishes.76.126.142.57 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: twice (fecal occult blood entry)

Greetings -

No copyright issue here.

Pinnacle BioLabs is my company. Noticed on the talk page of fecal occult blood in 2 separate places users wanted gFOBT image gone and the hi res fit test seems to fit the bill.

Thanks for dropping me a line. Feel free to continue the dialogue.

Great. Two things:

1. The watermark needs removing
2. You must send an email to WP:OTRS.

Than we can get things straightened out.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

image

Send an email giving the image license to wiki when it was uploaded and requested by wiki. I noticed you made some other revisions to the page as well, most importantly of which was The American College of Gastroenterology has recommended the abandoning of gFOBT testing as a Colorectal Cancer Screening tool, in favor of the Fecal Immunochemical Test. This statement was cited, etc. I think given that it is colorectal cancer awareness month, and given the saturation of the topic - and as many people that are in search of answers and turn to wiki - its a bit of an injustice to have an image representative of a methodology that should be non-existent as a modality for CRC screening.

Would you mind reverting - and I'll have someone give the image a crop?

Many thanks.

(also, I can't seem to sign this properly so feel free to reach me at cbalentine@pblabs.com)

Cbalentine (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)CBalentine

Will look thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Have added "The American College of Gastroenterology has recommended the abandoning of gFOBT testing as a colorectal cancer screening tool, in favor of the fecal immunochemical test."

gFOBT is still used in much of the world as even though it is not as good, it costs less and is better than nothing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Lisa Bero) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Lisa Bero, Jmh649!

Misplaced Pages editor Jrcrin001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Article rated B class, notability okay and declaration excellent.

To reply, leave a comment on Jrcrin001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

• Traffic report: Brinksmen on the brink

• Discussion report: Four paragraph lead, indefinitely blocked IPs, editor reviews broken?

• News and notes: Misplaced Pages Library finding success in matching contributors with sources

• Featured content: Full speed ahead for the WikiCup

• WikiProject report: Article Rescue Squadron

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Our statement here

http://febrileseizures.org.uk/forums/topic/wikipedias-factual-inaccuracies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.37.5 (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will keep an eye on that page. If you can define what is wrong with Misplaced Pages's content using proper sources than we can correct it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tips

Thanks for the editing tips...I didn't realize there was was an easy built-in template. I'll do that going forward. I appreciate your work on here. Grillo7 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if you have further questions :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Eclampsia

Thank you, Doc James. I also made a few changes to the article content to make it less like a treatment protocol for clinicians. And I found a few updated references, too. Some time this week I plan to do a rewrite in honor of International Woman's Day since it is one of the oldest diseases specific to women. Have a nice day. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If you bring it to GA would be happy to add it to the translation list :-) Otherwise we should at least translate the lead as part of the group of simplified articles we are translating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

References

The reference I cited had already been used on the sodium nitroprusside page. I simply edited the reference to include an accessible link to the full article. NoriMori (ノリモリ) 14:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks yes. Removed the text in question as the ref did not really support it. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why u've removed my input

Hello James
I'm sorry but I don't understand why you have deleted my input. Couldn't you put a special model for requesting more reliable sources instead?
Most of the sources in the article are NOT review articles.
So I don't understand why you've deleted my (small) input and not the others? --Dernier Siècle (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes the rest of the sources need to be replaced by review articles. Adding more primary sources makes this harder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Top medical editors

Thanks for that msg James. Somewhat depressing to think that my level of wiki activity earns me this place, because I don't feel I work very hard at all. Perhaps I was working more consistently at the beginning of 2013. We really do need more editors... Anyway, I have made a resolution to try out the collaboration with journals thing and if it works out to stop publishing off-wiki. I much prefer writing Misplaced Pages, because of the sense of collaboration. The delay is due to several half finished papers in the pipe line ... 2 at peer review and the rest in various stages of completion. I am not starting any more, so eventually I will be focusing more on wiki, and focusing on producing a few very high quality articles rather than haphazard editing. Ian and I have toothache at GA currently, but still would need a fair bit of work before being fit for a journal. Maybe aphthous stomatitis is more ready for that. Lesion (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes we are few. Wonderful to hear you are going to pick up the pass. We at JMIR Wiki Reviews look forwards to your papers. First few are on the house :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for passing the barnstar to me too. I too feel surprised that the level of work that I have put in is not much and yet I get into the top 10. Can you tell me where to find the list? Do you have any suggestions based on which we could motivate more users in contribution to medical articles? Diptanshu 10:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey of wikipedians background

Hi Doc James, This thread is regarding your post at the project medicine page. I chose not to comment there in order to minimize the impact of my comment on your study; however, I do have a question/comment, I hope you don't mind me posting it here?

The project medicine page where you posted your rfc is frequented by the 274 editors who made more than 250 edits to medical articles in 2013. According to the proposal, those are the same editors who will be the subjects of the study. Do you see this overlap as a confound/source of bias? Survey-based studies inherently suffer from social desirability bias and it seems that asking the future subjects to review the proposal (which indicates the desired outcome) greatly compounds this potential bias. In my opinion, this study would be more robust if the future respondents were blind to these objectives and hypotheses and simply asked for demographic information without providing them any context with which to establish what the desirable outcome is. I comment because I note that a publication in JMIR, or PLoS medicine is the goal and the issue of bias that I raise here would be a major concern if I were asked to review. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on your proposed study! Puhlaa (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes excellent points. This could potentially affect the answer for the English group. I already know the professional background of many of the English group though. I do not think people will misrepresent themselves. Many of us (like both yourself and myself) state our professional credentials on our user page.

The majority (160) of the group is from non English languages and thus this should not affected them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; I look forward to reading the study one day! Best of luck with your research. Puhlaa (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Adverse effects of FQs

A consensus was reached to merge this article into Quinolones. I'm not familiar with the process here and don't know what needs to be done next. From my humble POV, all of the information from the Adverse Events article that is noteworthy and properly sources has already been incorporated in the Quinolones article.

Is there something I need to do here to wrap this process up?

Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikitravel

Wikitravel is much better on some articles than Wikivoyage. It doesn't matter if it is for profit or not, that is not a valid reason to prefer one source over another. Rather, the quality of the source is important. Also, Wikivoyage has some very poor editors who continue to avoid improvement of articles. Therefore, the idea that Wikivoyage is somehow superior by definition is sadly mistaken. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah. The content used to be the same. The community and the content moved to WV. Thus yes the content at WV developes well that at WT has not been. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Autism

Hi DocJames, I wanted to know because, in May 2013 (last year), the DSM-IV revised to its current manual DSM 5 and has consolidated Asperger's, PDD-NOS, and Autism into one label: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Do you think it's worth mentioning in the lead? Also the hatnote on top uses the word "pervasive developmental disorders" but it is no longer recognized as the diagnostic term for ASD. I think it needs to be revised. See here: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Autism%20Spectrum%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf ATC 04:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia has the most expertise with that article. It appears the DSM5 includes ASD as a "neurodevelopmental disorder" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct and yes, I brought this to SandyGeorgia's attention. She or he has not responded. If the user doesn't reply do you know anyone else that I could connect with? ATC 00:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Crohn's disease

Hey Jmh, if you're interested, I'd like to work with you to try and get Crohn's to FA after Jfdwolff finishes the GA review of psoriasis. I imagine it's probably fairly close to achieving that FA status. Let me know if you're interested. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It needs a good solid updating. Am willing to help but my primary effort is going into just improving leads of articles for translation into other languages as possible per here . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case, let's put that on hold. I think I'm going to work on Bipolar disorder first. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hempseed oil on Dermatitis page

OK. I can see the logic behind using review articles. And I can see the sense in avoiding primary sources. However, there remains a problem. A clinical trial (which, by the way, was found using TRIP database) is evidence. Therefore, to continue saying "There is no evidence..." in the face of said evidence, becomes a bald faced lie. May I suggest we simply remove the words "hempseed oil" from this section since there really is evidence. Even if we don't like the form of the evidence or what it says. After a life long experiment with the treatment of dermatitis I can tell you that hempseed oil is the only natural medicine which has made any significant impact on my symptoms of my particular strain of dermatitis. That anecdotal evidence can never be used as the basis for medical advice to the public, but I can not ignore it, and I can not sit idly by while someone tries to tell me "There is no evidence..." --Livepsycle (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes good point. I have changed no evidence, to insufficient evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Congratulation

Thanks for the message and congratulation. I'm surprised to know that I've made the highest edits to medical content on Arabic Misplaced Pages! because the number of my edits as well as my activity level aren't that high! I guess it reflects the need for more work on Arabic Misplaced Pages. Definitely, I'm interested to help as much as I can. I had quick look at links you provided, not sure exactly what I'm suppose to do but well look at it again and well message you if I've questions.--Ffraih (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Great to have you join us :-) Instructions on how to add articles are here Feel free to email me and I can put you into contact with the translating team. Also if you see articles that are already good in Arabic please mark the table telling us not to translate them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Epidemiological data

Hi Doc. For epidemiological data, do you think it's appropriate to use the WorldHealthRankings website (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/stomach-cancer/by-country/), rather than secondary sources? My concern here is that it's difficult to find up-to-date epidemiological data in secondary sources. Your advice would be much appreciated. I probably should have asked your advice before working on this section of the article, but the previous version had no supporting references at all. Thanks, Alan Merrit (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What about the world cancer report? I have WHO data as well. Would not use the source you mention. Here is the 2008 WCR 2014 is out but not sure how to get access. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. The last few times I checked the WHO website, the data was quite old. I'll have another look though. I'll check out the world cancer report ASAP too. Cheers, Alan Merrit (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Goodpasture's syndrome

Hi, James. I think the page Goodpasture's syndrome should be moved to Goodpasture syndrome as this is the name given in the ICD-10. Thoughts? I would ordinarily ask this question on the page's talk page but seeing how in my experience a reply usually takes weeks to be received I thought I might as well get to the chase. Fuse809 (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Amen

I think I restored your edits properly. Please check, I am signing off soon. I was reverting an earlier edit. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes thanks. ADD is simply an old term for ADHD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Dental implant

Thank for the changes and notes on GA review. With respect to removing sections that are not in MEDMOS, I'll combine types and composition into the history section. Is the consenus not to include any subsections? For instance, under Risk and complications, we would prefer I remove all the subheadings and convert to a series of paragraphs. Ian Furst (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No the only section that I think needs removing is the "see also" section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

does cite isbn cause the same hell for translation? Should I be replacing those too? Ian Furst (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes please. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

OMG, just finished removing all the cite isbn's and cite pmid's. That is brutal and boring. If you need another $200 to get the bot done tell me where to direct the donation. Never again. Ian Furst (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know it is horrible doing it manually. We need a bot. Vote support on the WP:MED page and we will get there :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing, conduct re: QG RfC

Hi Doc James,

May I clarify an issue at the QG RfC? The following isn't a matter of "QuackGuru is sometimes difficult, but he's right about stuff".

• If Smith publishes a finding, and a few years later Jones repeats the finding and sources it to Smith, proper protocol is to cite Smith. Right?

• If multiple editors agree to cite Smith, and "Editor: John Doe" keeps insisting Jones is better because Jones is more recent, John Doe is mistaken both in substance and process. Right?

That's what's going on in this thread, which is part of the evidence submitted. (Smith and Jones, here, being White '04 and Adama '11 respectively)

I know you looked at this, because of your comment here, yet all you say in that comment is basically, "hey, he added Jones , what's the big deal". But it's poor conduct (both on substance and process). Do you disagree?

I'm not trying to get you to agree with all of the evidence submitted; I agree some of it is outdated and/or poorly presented. But I've yet to hear you acknowledge the validity of a single piece of evidence in that RfC. regards, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 03:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Proper protocol is to cite Jones here at Misplaced Pages as presumable Jones analysed Smith as well as other stuff.

If multiple people are disagreeing next step is a RfC to bring in more viewpoints to build consensus. If none of the editors are doing this than no one is following process. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Doc, it was just for the one finding, 5 in 10^6 SAE's, full stop. In that case you cite Smith, the source for the finding. At least in my world. Are there different standards in medical journals than in basic science journals? (And no, the "if" you mention above was not the case, cf. below.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 08:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Positions are

• Support the use of a 2004 paper: Middle 8, A1candidate, Herbxue (a WP:SPA), Mallexikon
• Question the use of a 2004 paper: QG and MrBill3

Yet somehow you lumped MrBill3 into the support for a 2004 paper which is not at all clear per your last statement in this section Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Huh? MrBill3 totally supported White 2004 (per MEDRS exceptions for older reviews in areas with relatively few reviews) . He also was none too happy about QG's conduct on talk pages: . --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 08:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at this bit "I think the "few reviews are being published" exception is to allow a 5 year plus review when there is not a more recent one, or a more recent one that is comparable available. Why would it be appropriate to use a 10 year old review when there is one that is from this year and one that is from two years ago? That you have shown seven reviews from 2010 to the present pretty much negates the idea that few reviews are being published. But again the relaxing of the 5 year rule IMO is to allow use of a older study when there is not a more current one available." It appears that he then changed his position to "I agree that if Adams is citing a number from White it should be sourced to White. With that change, as the numbers are in the article, have we reached consensus." Still were is the RfC to bring wider input to this decision? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Question on porting templates to other languages

Is there any reason that the template {{annotated image 4}} wouldn't work correctly (i.e., just annotate text on images in the corresponding language) on other language wikis if I just copied/pasted the code into the corresponding template name on non-English wikis? Not sure if you know the answer to this, but you're probably the best person to ask. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to get big templates to work in other languages. I have not had success. Let me know if you figure out how. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

• News and notes: Wikimedians celebrate International Women's Day, Women's History Month

• Traffic report: War and awards

• Featured content: Ukraine burns

• WikiProject report: Russian WikiProject Entomology

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with mainspace edits?

Hi, one more thing re Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Misplaced Pages "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). I've had little if any interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of Mallexikon (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You made unsupported claims and when called on it did not withdraw them or provide support for them. Most of the evidence you provided was ancient. You are right that QG was outnumbered by a number of accounts; however, many of these mostly or only edit acupuncture articles. Much of what he does is support by guidelines and thus by consensus. A small local consensus does not trump a community wide consensus. It is unfortunate that no one has tried a RfC regarding content to bring more editors to the issues. I fault User:QuackGuru the same amount as others involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is the dif were QG added "5 in 10^6 SAE"? Or diffs because you make it sound like he did it multiple times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)