User talk:Doc James

We have an offline version of our healthcare content. Download the app and access all this content when there's no Internet. (other languages)

 Translation
Main page Those Involved
(sign up) Newsletter 

Please click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online. DYK for Knee dislocation On 6 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Knee dislocation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that about half of knee dislocations (example pictured) spontaneously relocate before the person arrives at hospital? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Knee dislocation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Knee dislocation), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Cool thanks User:Gatoclass Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Muscular Dystrophy Hi James, I think abiding by WP:MEDORDER on Muscular Dystrophy would actually do good to this article, considering that it is about a vast group of diseases. That means, "Classification" should come as the first section below lede, etc. Do you have any objections? — kashmīrī TALK 13:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC) There are two options for placement of the classification section per MEDMOS. One is first and the other is under diagnosis. And the classification is rather complicated I think it fits well under diagnosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC) NADAC and Average Monthly Cost Hi there! I was wondering if you could help me learn how to calculate the average monthly cost from the NADAC, as you did here. For example, the NADAC for amiloride HCl 5mg tablets is 0.33433. Thanks in advance!―Biochemistry🙴❤ 18:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC) So with the price of 0.334 per 5 mg tab. Usual dose is 10 mg per day[1] Multiple by 60 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Thank you! That makes total sense; much appreciated!―Biochemistry🙴❤ 13:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder The article Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: Wikipedia:NOTJOURNAL, possible WP:NOT#OR While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 03:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC) This is (another!) one of those cases where the OP should have taken WP:DTTR to heart. Johnuniq (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC) This was split out of the main ADHD article as a subpage. This is how we go into greater detail without having overly long primary articles. The text is based mostly on review articles as it should be. User:Basilosauridae can you clearly define which part of the article is "original research" (ie stuff not previously published)? BestDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Hi all, upon further review, I retract my statement that this may contain possible OR. On the talk page, I suggest merging this article with the main article, as this content is partially already covered there and does not appear to link to this page at all, so appears to be redundant to me. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 13:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Regarding the "menopause" article I see that you have reverted my addition to the "menopause" article regarding the prospective treatment of menopause using platelet-rich plasma. Could you please clarify to me exactly what was wrong with the section per WP:MEDRS? I am afraid that I am not particularly familiar with that particular guideline, as I rarely edit medical articles except for minor grammatical and formatting changes and corrections. To the best of my knowledge, the New Scientist magazine, while not a medical journal or textbook, is a fairly reliable secondary source that does not (generally) publish sensationalist stories or distort the truth of the subjects which it covers (with the possible exception of the criticism mentioned in its Wikipedia article). 114.75.119.210 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC) This edit is based on popular press. One would require a high quality review article for this sort of controversial stuff per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I see. Thank you for clarifying. I will not re-add the section unless I find a reliable medical source. 114.75.119.210 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I am the same person who posted the above message. I have an additional question: would be the information that I added in the reverted edit be useful on any other article with the source that I used? 114.75.202.140 (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC) No. For health information we require really good sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC) I see. Thank you for the information. Have a good day. 114.75.202.140 (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Data and Resources from RWJF Hey there! we talked briefly on the project we are working on at the Foundation and how we can to create and open access to data and information for people to use and share. We have several funded research that has gone through peer reviewed journals and what not and i just wanted to touch base on what type of research and most importantly resource would be appropriate. i understand we need third party resources as to not look as if it is promoting or self serving that is why i wanted to gather as much information and bounce ideas off the community please feel free to email me dpena@rwjf.org i have some questions and would really appreciate your input DaP87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Sure connected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Endometriosis#Comparison of interventions Hi James, Would you care to take a look at this section? I added the results from a 2018 systematic review from SBU. Some of the results clearly contradict what our article states, which cites among other things a single RCT and a 1999 article. Unfortunately the entire report is not available in English, and I didn't want to remove everything for that reason. My interpretation of the findings is the efficacy of surgery as opposed to the risks may be overstated in the current article. Could you look at this, and whether it impacts the lede for translation? Best, Carl Fredrik (WIR) (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Sure happy with the 2018 review. Any other things you think need updating? Lead appears to be congruent with the review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Mail Hi sir, have you checked my mail? --Josephpaulkochi (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Will do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Another encounter Doc, I ran into another user that reminds me a lot of you. Academic bravado, only his interpretation of facts was correct, Only room for discussion was to appropriate his right-ness and establish his way of doing, reinterpreting sources to his own agenda, and ultimately hijacking pages and protecting them like little pet projects. Have you noticed that I never contributed to single page you watch like a hawk since our last encounter? I even told him about you in hopes that he'd relax. But no, because I called him uninformed, and criticized his little pet social-constructionism, he played his games. He forced me to produce resources supporting my claims in contributions. So I would. Then he would all of a sudden just magically have the exact obscure source I produced, and would find a different passage from it to counter my point. The only semblance of any "willingness to contribute" was when he professed to want to improve wikipedia. But, if that were true, then he would have used the sources (that he initially concealed from that he had) to dialogue with me constructively, and make his own improvements. But no, all he wanted to do was revert my edits and argument with my sources. Sure, he'll tell you I couldn't produce and viable resources (Just like you did to me on the CBT page 3 years ago), but he can only say that if he first argues a different interpretation, whether he knows or not that that's what he's doing. Doc, if you came to me and said, "Urstadt, I got this 18-year old kid telling me that hemp paper is stronger that regular paper. He said he tried to tell you that and you told him he was wrong. So he tells me that he told you, Urstadt, the resource and citation supporting his claim." And Doc, let's pretend that's exactly how it happened. The 18-year old kid produced a valid source. Well, if I don't want to look like a you know what, I have to point to different parts of the source material that somehow obscure the certainty of the passage the 18-year old showed me. Now Doc, if I do that, I am clearly not trying to help this kid improve an article! I am clearly trying to thwart it? Now, why would I do that, Doc? Well, here are the possibilities: I am prejudice against hemp and marijuana I am envious that a punk kid knew more than me I want to dictate what is on certain pages that I have subconsciously adopted as my mini-projects I rule over I have a personality disorder, and am therefore likely unmarried, and probably not very well liked by peers and co-workers. So, what am I to conclude? Well, if I want to show good faith, then there is a 5th possibility: I over-analyze and destructively criticize everything because my own intellect gets in the way of the very thing I am trying to use it for. I mean, that's not real far off as a possibility. This is why editors sometimes have to take writers' work away from them. It's typically why they don't have many real relationships. Not because there is anything wrong with him: but rather, because nothing is ever good enough for them. That is seriously the plight of many intellects. They just don't know how to get out of their own walkety-the-plank way. Do you know the solution for this type of intellect? Meaning, solution for coping with this insidious way of being? Tyrannical control. The intellect of this burdening requires tyrannical control over everything in their (real or virtual) environment because of the utter lack of control upstairs, and the greater lack of control of the fallout from it. Oh no, I couldn't be right (even though I was), because then that would mean that his intellectual burdening is once again getting in his way and he would have to face that. But, if I am wrong, and he is right, then he is not falling victim to his own intellectual interruptions/disruptions. No, instead all that is happening is that he was in control and validated that he is still ok for another day. I have watched your edits for three years. Not round the clock, but I wish I could've. I have been watching this guy's since my first run-in with him shortly after my last with you. The level of control you two require, my Good-Padlock, I thought for a moment you two were the same. I swear you two could be twins. Oh, and my absolute favorite part is that you both are so walkety-the-plank johnny on the spot to go and done cite wiki policy all rickety-tick. Too bad there is no policy for disguised hijacking on wikipedia. Or disguised pet-project-ing. There are people in this world who have now been held back from knowing what the information I have studied has to offer them. You do it on the CBT and EMDR page. Biogeographist does it on the now deleted Ontological Hermeneutics page (oh, you can bet I was never going to let him do to that page what he tried to do and has done elsewhere. That was the best thing I ever wrote as a teenager. I lied right lickety-split to get that page deleted and it was gone in less than two hours), and Omnipaedista does it on many philosophy pages. (Now, of course, I tried to get Omnipaedista to go over to the Ontological Hermeneutics page, given his background, to convince other admins that it was a hoax (as I was lying that it was). My thinking, Doc, was that his background would cause him to come and disagree that it was hoax. The truth be told, since he's been monitoring the Hermeneutics page for like 4 plus years, he should've known that I was lying about the Ontological hermeneutics page being a hoax. Especially because he had made several improvements to the article! Granted they were clerical, but you gotta read the yarpping page to do it! He never once challenged anything for almost 4 years on that. All of a sudden, Biogeographist comes in and stirs waves, and never Omni is telling me on his talk page that it's a hoax, and regurgitating Bio's propaganda (which I will probably get from you in your response to this!). Have you ever heard of the file drawer effect in research and peer-review publishing? Of course you, Doc. That's kind of what this is like here. And I sincerely apologize that this sounds like an attack. I am not trying to attack anyone. Please, show good faith, and chalk my horrible wordsmithing up to just that: bad wordsmithing when trying to merely get a point (and some kind of an argument for said point) across. And that point is this: Wikipedia has an underground oligarchy creating their own intellectual and cultural Czar. By the way, Doc, how are you courses going? Got any courses coming up in the next little bit that you're particularly looking forward to, not looking forward to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urstadt (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Per "He forced me to produce resources supporting my claims in contributions." Yes this is a foundation of Wikipedia. Once sources are produced one can than discuss what they mean and how they should be balanced with the rest of the literature on a topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Ketamine Hello, I just noticed you reverted my correction in the article (the German common name being written with a capital first letter) without any reason given. In German, all nouns are written with a capital first letter; this includes names of places, animals, plants, substances etc.. Writing names with a capital first letter is german orthography, just as using Umläute (such as ä, ö, ü) or transliterating them as "ae, oe, ue". Should you be in doubt about this, you could consult e. g. the german Wikipedia page; even not speaking german, one can see that Ketamin as such is always written with a capital K. Cheers,--78.43.65.214 (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Ah yes. I see that you are correct and have reverted myself. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Question about wording You recently changed the word "infants" to "babies" in a section that I have been working on [2] Why did you do that? Gandydancer (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Having been working on that article aswell off and on for years. IMO "newborn baby" is perfectly reasonable. "Newborn infant" is fine aswell. Do you prefer one over the other? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Heart failure Hello Doc James, just wanted to ask if this source is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia? Just wondering because you removed it here. Thanks. (120.144.154.144 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)) Yes that blog is generally viewed as not acceptable. Expecially when other better sources are avaliable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks Doc James. (120.144.154.144 (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC))