User talk:Doc James/Archive 123

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, note that any other items (besides the Vasovagal/Reflex syncope item that you created) on this IP@ talk page are not of my doing. I do not vandalize pages, just fyi. You didn't accuse me of this, I know, but had to state that.

I will review the guidelines on references/citations. I did use the citation tool, however.

So one of the 'food poisoning' references was sourced from the same 'high-quality' source as another reference (for the TMS cause) in the wiki article. This source refers to NTS, where salmonella caused severe hemorrhagic cystitis, leading a patient (with other complications, in this case) to 'syncope'. [1]

The other 'food poisoning' source cited salmonella ingestion correlated with an extreme drop in blood pressure. Although, it does not correlate this further with a vasovagal interruption episode, although that is mentioned later in the reference (as a drop in blood pressure is an underlying symptom). ["Low blood pressure and dizziness (MPKB)". Marshall Protocol Knowledge Base. Autoimmunity Research Foundation. Retrieved 13 November 2017.]

References on the correlation to salmonella are not easily found, and I am not a graduate student who may have more time to find them. The cause listed as 'Environmental triggers: light (television or strobe, as well), atmospheric or other such similarities to past syncope episodes' is something I have not seen referenced before. However, psychological and physiological triggers are known to contribute to causation and/or enhance symptoms, and I am very certain they played a role in my own experiences.

Personally, I have had FIVE episodes. Each time leading to a greater understanding of the reasons, indications and circumstances of my own syncope. Not all triggers/causes are relevant to everyone who has experienced this, as we know. Each episode, I can recall the details quite well (and my detection of onset improved each time, as experience goes). In EVERY one of my syncope episodes the common denominator has been the ingestion of chicken tainted with salmonella and time period of 8-9 hours. This created the physiological conditions that provide the window of opportunity where the resulting syncope can occur (combined with environmental factors, perhaps genetics and/or my own development). Two episodes were in an environment very similar to the first episode, the other three had just some environmental similarities. I feel it is very important to note this in the article, especially for those who may be able to further research and/or try to understand their own syncope's. I would not list anything that wasn't relevant or try to sway loose causation for personal/egotistical reasons. I would appreciate your help with my contribution to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.122 (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This [2] is a case report. Please use high quality review articles.

We do not accept personal opinion / experience as a source. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Texting your doctor

Jim: Hey Dr. Ellis, this is Jim from the Vascular lab. Have an outpatient here with an external iliac occlusion with cold foot pin and numbness that started 3 days ago. What should I do with her?

Crissy: Hi, this is Crissy. I think you have the wrong number, but I looked it up on Wikipedia and I’m pretty sure u need to put a stent in her left radial artery. Best of luck, Jim!

Jim: Oh, sorry Crissy! Wrong number. She actually ended up getting a stent. Took an hour longer for med pros to figure out what took you 3 minutes.

Crissy: Alright, well...are you hiring?

😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

James: this. This has shown me just how poorly you understand or are familiar with my own edit history, my contributions to Wikipedia, or the motivations behind what I do and don't do here. My respect for you continues to go down. Even if you believed the statement you made there about me to be true, characterizing me in terms of it was unnecessary and was done in order to help you phrase a Village Pump proposal in the most inflammatory of terms/ to get the most possible support for a pet project you felt was important to get passed. You know so very little about me, and what little you do know you have chosen to paint black. If I am the only person you can use on a crucifix for this, then maybe the crucifix isn't all that great an idea. I am becoming exhausted by your mistreatment, mischaracterization, and your refusal to apologize for recent errors you have made with regard to me and my work (errors pointed out to you by others). Prior to August of this year, you and I had been able to interact under civil, even positive terms. But what you are doing to me now is puerile. I won't ask you to stop it again. I am appalled that someone in your role and with your experience would even do it once. Thanks KDS4444 ^(talk) 23:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Your use Wikipedia is not to improve the site, but to make money for yourself. Much of what you have added is very promotional and consumes large amounts of volunteer time to clean up. And now as an OTRS agent you were trying to get money from people who were reaching out for help from volunteers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That is what I mean by painting me black. And again, you have missed my point. Maybe you should add the following to your characterization: "Well known long term paid editor KDS4444, about whom I am aware only because he made full disclosure of his paid editing activities per our Terms of Use and for which I am very grateful because I wouldn't want him or any other editor feel that they shouldn't make such disclosures whenever appropriate..." If you cannot do that, then you have lost me and thousands like me. Or here's a better one: "KDS4444, tell me something about your decision to accept payment for your edits— how did you come to make them? Did you feel you might be abusing your role by doing this? I am glad you made the necessary disclosures, but I wonder if you feel maybe you havenb't been given the short end of a stick... Were you really responding to those asking for help by demanding cash? WHat happened there?" That would be nice too. KDS4444 ^(talk) 00:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No. You disclosing does not give you a free ride to add promotional material to Wikipedia and use advanced privileges to try to get further money. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

KDS, stop this display of martyrdom and the corresponding digging of your own hole.You are experienced enough to be not baby-sitted. I am also frankly appaled at how you continue to defend your utterly egregious and disruptive behaviour over OTRS which not only included solicitation of payments from random clients but also consisted of pathetic unproffesional replies to clients on a host of other issues.Consider us gracious enough that we didn't start a proposal to C-ban you, immediately after the OTRS debacle.Winged Blades ^Godric 05:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The reviewer has a slew of comments that I am working through, but you are invited to contribute to the process. David notMD (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:David notMD currently travelling and not sure when I will be able to get to it :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 Template:PD-US-Medical imaging has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc. If you get a chance, could you look at the Medicinal properties subsection at Bergamot orange#Uses for MEDRS compliance? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Rivertorch adjusted a few things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for the edits you made to the Kallmann syndrome page. As a patient I watch the page with interest. I sometimes get worried when I see it has been edited but the work you have done is a real improvement to the page. Another user made edits after you, some of which I did not agree with but I can see why they have been done so I will not edit them back again.

There have been a few papers published this year so I might make a couple of minor edits and add a couple of more up to date references in the next couple of weeks.

Do you think the article is close to "Good Article" standard or are there some other changes I could make as well ?

Thank you for your help.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it requires a fair bit more work until it is GA. It is not to bad right now but lots of little things are needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

-- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

You are being asked to provide a conflict of interest statement in relation to your work on the chronic fatigue syndrome article. Please see the CFS talk page, and the section entitled "Are There Any Editors Paid by the Disability Insurance Industry to Work on This ME/CFS Article?"

You may wish to read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest. In particular, note the definition of a COI: "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, financial (including holding a cryptocurrency), or legal—can trigger a COI."

Thanks. Happy to reply to this. I make no money from what I do on Wikipedia. My income comes from seeing patients in the ER and providing oversight to EMS services. In fact I am not paid per patient but contracted by the hour. If my community / the world becomes health and uses less medical services my work becomes easier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

If you and/or your page watchers could look at Al-Raqad syndrome, I'd appreciate it. No clue what are standards are for stuff like this, and it was recently created. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

OMIM is a reasonable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. References for healthcare related studies should always be coming from PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartoun (talk • contribs) 02:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not clear why you deleted the edits that I provided to Cirrhosis. The reference that I provided was published in PubMed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartoun (talk • contribs) 02:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The important this is also to use review articles User:Kartoun. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Review articles are very important, I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartoun (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Great. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Do not redirect the Cord Blood transfusion to Cord Blood. Cord Blood transfusion is a totally new concept and embraced now globally including Prof. Eliane Gluckman. Also, the inventor of this process has been named as one of the top 5 cord blood scientists in the world along with Eliane Gluckman, Hal E Broxemeyer, Pablo Rubenstein, Joanne Kurtzberg and Prof. Niranjan Bhattacharya. https://www.bioinformant.com/cord-blood-influencers/

Cord blood transfusion uses the whole cord blood and not the cord blood stem cells or as profoundly known as cord blood transplantation.Check out Lancet Feb 2015 edition of Prof. Eliane Gluckman where she cited our groundbreaking work for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyodarshi (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Cord blood and cord blood transfusion are similar enough. What is your relation to the topic in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. I don't think the additions were massive enough to request blacklisting at WP:WPSPAM, but I caught two users (unsure if socks, one may be stale) refspamming (substituting dead links to what appears to be an ad) in medical articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/phathaihn.org#Users (all instances reverted). I remember your invitation to report such, so thought that I would report this small event here, instead of at ANI. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Concerning that the spam is also occurring in vi WP. That source also contains stuff that is blatantly wrong.

Blocked both accounts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The diagram is intentionally simplistic. Just because you don't like how it looks doesn't mean it doesn't belong on the page. It shows the formation of an ulcer, simple, and does so correctly. There is no reason to continually revert the edits, as it only causes disruption. יבריב (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The image is of sufficiently poor quality that it is not needed on that page. You will need to get consensus on the talk page.

Also it appears to have been created / added by a sock of a banned user. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a fine balance between objective presentation of Mohs surgery, its values, and limitations . I have strived for years to keep biases, politics, and false statements from this page. The procedure has suffered a black eye from over marketing and is no longer respected because of such implications as the best , the only, and the one way to approach both basal and squamous cell cancer. Which it is not. The photo, although real. And correct in its application is not representative of the typical outcome of the cases where it is truly necessary. Simple excision of a small basal cell cancer with correctly placed margin will give equivalent results. It is the cure rate and narrow margins that is emphasized by frozen section. It irks me as a Mohs surgeon on the marketing push of some of my peers that there is no better approach that prevents me from posting my own cases. As the outcome has to do with the reconstruction and not the Mohs method . A well painted car does not speak of the motor. Nor does the scar speaks of the method. I strive to keep politics and commercialism out of this page since its early day when it was sabotaged daily by Mohs hater. Then the push to have only “one” ownership , then of politics of the societies . This photo is misleading . And patients AND doctors will pay the price for unrealistic expectations . Please do not repost it as it does nothing for the advancement of Mohs surgery. I have contributed over 80 percents if not more of the framework and references of this page. Northerncedar (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Northerncedar (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets keep the discussion on the talk page of the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Congrats to all involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You moved the paragraph about Invossa, in the "research" section. But it's an actually approved medication for 50 million of people. Something they can actually benefit of and which has been developed through standard medical drug development process, with the three phases clinical trial. Aren't you unfair, and ethnocentric here? Would that be your intention to convey the meaning that South Korean people are unworthy, or that South Korean science is not real science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.99.199 (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. The popular press is generally not suitable and likely we should remove the text all together. Interested in hearing your relationship to the product in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of the Wikipedia policy for medical articles [[3]]. I will adhere to that going forward. However, in the same section of that article [[4]] is found the following sentence and citation:

A single dose of diazepam modulates the dopamine system in similar ways to how morphine and alcohol modulate the dopaminergic pathways. "New Evidence on Addiction To Medicines Diazepam Has Effect on Nerve Cells in the Brain Reward System". Medical News Today. August 2008. Archived from the original on September 12, 2008. Retrieved September 25, 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Is Medical News Today considered an acceptable medical reference? In particular, if you follow the link in the Diazepam article, Medical News Today itself classifies that page as a "Adapted Media Release". I notice that Medical News Today is often cited in Wikipedia, but many of the citations seemed to be of different character than this one, more in the nature of medical news reporting than as a secondary source of medical information.

Just trying to understand what is and is not considered an acceptable citation for medical articles. Much of my Wikipedia editing involves finding good links to the literature, which is big part of what makes Wikipedia invaluable to me personally.

Thanks for your advice! Pmokeefe (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No medical news today is popular press. Agree that text should be better referenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Doc James,

I saw that you have removed my edits on heart failure incidence.

I believe the article needs to be updated to reflect recent large-scale epidemiological studies on heart failure, as well as for overall consistency.

Fist the references are outdated: The McMurray 2005 review itself refers to studies ranging from 1993 to 2003, ie. the most recent data is 15 years old. The same goes for the 2008 ESC guidelines (with the exception of the 2007 review by Mosterd et al, but this again is only a review referencing the same older studies). As for the AHA cardiovascular disease statistics they actually simply relate the results of the 2002 Framingham heart study (which was based on 10,000 subjects in the USA).

Second in the introduction nothing is said about the incidence of heart failure. However incidence is an essential measure in epidemiology - equally important to prevalence and mortality rates - and should be described.

Finally, in the paragraph named "epidemiology" the numbers are inconsistent with those in the introduction. Some references refer to unpublished sources and others are again 15-20 years old.

If you have constructive objections to my edits, I am happy to discuss your thoughts. Otherwise I would kindly ask you to stop removing my comments.

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.117.112 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We should be using review articles per WP:MEDRS. This one just applies to the UK and is a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, proximal extremities sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. Can you just briefly let me know if such usage is medically correct? Thanks for your time. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Extremity means arms or legs. Proximal means the part of the arm or leg that is close to the core. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc James. I get that. My question is of a language/ wording nature: in juxtaposing the two it makes sound as if there are two groups/ types / categories of extremities (i.e., distal extremities and proximal extremities. So, to refer to "the part of the arm or leg that is close to the core" would it not be more clear/ correct to say "the proximal portion/ part/ section of the extremity? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, your input is appreciated. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi James! I am not sure whether you receive notifications from other projects. There is one discussion, where your opinion will be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, --Atsirlin (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Not much experience with that process. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

[5].

Could I get you to weigh in on this? Berkeley is not a pleasant person to debate with alone.

If you have any thoughts on how I've been comporting myself as an editor in all this, I'm eager to hear them. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The page is protected. The person IP does not have consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed the recent reference (Greenwood) for Phenoxymethylpenicillin because I read the reference and then read the primary reference and found that the recent reference (Greenwood) was in fact incorrect. I therefore removed the Greenwood reference. I can understand why he might have been misaken because the original German is difficult. I cannot find a better more recent reference in English. Gak (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Gak Let me look for another ref.

This one gives US patent info from 1949[6]

And this gives details about the German manufacture and how it was made earlier than that in the USA[7]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Doc,

Thank you for posting out that reference. I see that the information on the page has changed. That information did used to be there. You can see it again cited on this article, under "recommendations of others":

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1783292

As you can see below, the American Cancer Society is still in favour of oral cancer screenings. The link to the page we used just did not provide this information. Thank you for pointing that out. I would like to come to an agreement on my article edit. It has valuable information.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/oral-cavity-and-oropharyngeal-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/detection.html

OP2017 (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. But we do not need to repeat a bunch of details about head and neck cancer. We can keep it focused on oral cancer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc, Thank you for those recommendations. I found a new source to support oral cancer screenings. I would like to keep the head and neck cancer section this way, as there is no other section for "head and neck cancer screening" on this page, therefore it is not repeating a bunch of details. Oral Cancer is a subset of head and neck cancer and it is very important. I hope you can respect these changes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OP2017 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

User:OP2017 your changes are not an improvement. So no, and I have restored to the better referenced version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I asked a question at Talk:Continuous positive airway pressure. No one has replied in 10 days. Maybe you can give it a look-see? Thanks, ―Buster7 ☎ 00:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure will do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello on September 7, 2017 you deleted a page for Ball & Chain (restaurant) in Miami, Florida. I were hoping to have it restored as it is not only our business but an important part of the history of Little Havana and Miami for the last 70 years (many jazz and latin music luminaries performed at our club in its first incarnation such as Billie Holliday, Chet Baker, and Celia Cruz, and we continue that tradition today). Can you let us know what the offending content was and how we can rectify and restore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondsoup (talk • contribs) 15:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No article by that name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It is listed at User:Bri/COIbox61#Creations of Jeremy112233 sockfarm with a spelling difference, was g5/g11/ToU speedy ☆ Bri (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah. So User:Pondsoup the answer to your question is unfortunately no. Expecially since you have not disclosed any potential conflicts of interest. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you take a look at ticket:2017112910014414 at some time - it's a request related to coeliac disease?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Replied. Thks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

In the light of recent developments (KDS4444, Arbcom, etc), this 4 year old project and its signatories have become a joke. Or at least a recent anachronism. There's no reason why outdated agreements can't be revoked. I think it's time for it to be revisited. Those organisations are no more ethical than pharma concerns who test their products on populations in developing countries that are beyond the control of the FDA/CDER. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, I don't see any agreement at WP:PRCOM for us to revisit or revoke, just a one-way statement using the Wiki page as a platform. What am I missing? Are you referring to the decision to allow it to be hosted here at all? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Have any of the signatories run into significant issues? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

MSL Group and their parent are currently listed at WP:COIN#Publicis PR company and US subsidiaries. Ogilvy has had issues there as well (archive 87, 89, and 102) but they were described as "lone wolf" operations from their Singapore office. Mister Wiki ... well we are about to get an Arbcom case on that one (Salvidrim). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

In case any of you haven't kept up with the case, its specifically going to be on the conduct issues and not on the paid editing question. It will likely give us enough answers, though, to know what needs to be changed to make our system for dealing with this phenomenon workable. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added a note to the page in question and removed mister wiki. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::Bri, I didn't say there is, or was, any agreement at WP:PRCOM for us to revisit or revoke. I'm not interested in this and I didn't even bother to vote or comment there because what I would have had to say would have been off topic - as everyone knows, I find the entire concept of paid editing totally antithetical to Wikpedia founding principles, and to allow it is an insult to my and everyone else's 1000s of hours of voluntary work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

James Yes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Mister Wiki just recently added themselves. I have removed them from the list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we're actually in violent agreement here so I'll just drop it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James,

You would be wise to read the sources before citing them. The Lancet review you have added, while published in 2017, refers to exactly the same old sources than the other papers.

The same goes for the wikipedia guidelines you refer to. There is no recent systematic review on heart failure incidence. And in this case, the guidelines recommend that one presents the facts from recent studies within their context, and not blocking wikipedia readers access to recent knowledge as you seem to be keen to do.

Kind regards.

Please read and follow WP:MEDRS. Also please sign your talk page comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Doc James,

You commented "too spammy". I think otherwise, and value this conference series highly.

How about at least a link to disease registries? That would be useful to both patients and researchers, and acceptable to you?

Seniorexpat (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

We do not link to conferences on Wikipedia pages generally. What do you mean by registries? You mean for people to sign up for research? We tend not to link to those either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Good question: "What do you mean by registries?" I find this page in need of editing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_registry

Even that IMO deficient page, though, lists a few registries, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_registry#Examples

My proposal would be to link to these registries, in which I participate:

• https://bronchiectasis.eu/
• https://www.bronchiectasisandntminitiative.org/Registry/Registry/Bronchiectasis-and-NTM-Research-Registry

Of course, there are rogue patient-fishing websites out there. As a physician you must know that, but you must also know that there is a great need for patients in legitimate clinical trials.

Seniorexpat (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure but Wikipedia is not here to help anyway collect patients for clinical trails. So I am not supportive of linking to registries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry to bother you but I am writing because I need some help or advice on the MSG page. We are citing an article incorrectly. Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) say clearly in their abstract that "Because of the absence of proper blinding, and the inconsistency of the findings, we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists between MSG ingestion and headache." We say there is "no good evidence" which is not at all the same. Any evidence published in a peer reviewed article (and not retracted) is "good" evidence. There are several double-blind studies that found a link in the O and N (2016) study, but many did not. Hence, the results are inconsistent and in the opinion of the authors, there is not enough evidence to suggest a link. I am asking for a change from "no good evidence" to "inconsistent findings." I would like to continue saying that "there does not appear to be a link between normal MSG consumption and headaches." I just don't want to inaccurately cite their article. I've even been told the wording has already been agreed on but I never agreed. I am asking for your help to make this page right. Thank you for your time and consideration.FFN001 (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

One can summarize "Because of the absence of proper blinding, and the inconsistency of the findings, we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists" as "there is no go evidence". This is simply the easier to understand version of the more technical wording.

You can start a WP:RfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your note about removing the information I added about MBP. What would be the proper way to add information to a page referencing this book? I have never added to this site before. Thanks.

User:JustAMom. That book is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia. Please read WP:MEDRS Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you have been involved at that article. It seems to have been whitewashed and appears to offer medical opinions on use and safety. I added a section expressing some documented concerns. I suspect that PR people amy watch and edit that page at the behest of the company. Thanks!

Will look. This article Tylenol (brand) is about the brand not the medication. Thus I removed your addition which belongs on the other page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but it seems that there should be some warning at the article, or possibly a comment and a link to the section at the article on the medication. I really think that article is "tended" by the company. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a big link at the top that says "For information about the active ingredient in Tylenol, see paracetamol, also known as acetaminophen." This article is only about the branded product. And no I do not think the company has had any involvement. Most of the article is about Tylenol recalls. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, glad that somebody of your caliber is on top of this article. I don't do much at WP anymore, but am always concerned for the welfare of the project. Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)