User talk:Doc James

Doc James is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.

WikiProject Pharmacology
General information
Project page	talk
Manual of Style	talk
Reliable sources	talk
Popular pages	talk
Departments  → Assessment (Log) talk  → Research talk  → Editor outreach talk
How to help
Requested articles (1) / (2)
Cleanup list
Other content
Categorization
Structure diagrams
Photographs
Templates
Workspace
Historical
Resources for editors	talk
Participants	talk
v t e

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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi I have been looking at many of the Aphasia related articles, to help me understand how the acquired disabilities relate to the corresponding developmental issues that affect my family, and those who contact the support organisation I help run. I have become aware of the various Progessive aphasias which result from or are apart of various forms of dementia, and that there is little mention of the aphasia in the dementia article. I did try to add a lionk via the existing See Also section, which you deleted. I have just looked at a link you gave to Wikipedia:MEDMOS which mentions navigation templates. I have looked at the templates on the Dementia article and again there is no mention of aphasias. I am not really into templates and their construction, so my question is should there be an aphasia section in one the existing templates or a new aphasia template dolfrog (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure lets put this is one of the templates.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on the article on osteoporosis. By the way, I notice your userpage says "In real like, I go by..." . Shouldn't that be "In real life.." ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking that up. Yes it should be. Type to much on too little sleep :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the deleted article Doc james. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just came accross this Apractagnosia a real mess, do you know anyone who could have a look at this article dolfrog (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some google books https://www.google.com/search?q=Apractagnosia&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image you uploaded is of a condition technically called erythema ab igne. Would you consider remaining the file? Does it matter? Thoughts? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes feel free to rename. You are indeed correct and I think that is the page this image is on. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doc:

Hope this finds you and yours well. About a month or two ago I saw a news ticker flash a blurb about a study showing that getting monoclonal antibodies into cancer cells is much easier and more efficient than previously thought. You wouldn't know anything about this, maybe have a cite, or know who to ask to get a guess or some opinion on this subject?

It got a TON of press for a day, and I meant to check it out, but it slipped through the cracks ... suggestions?

In particular, I'm wondering about a MAb specifically targeted against a mutant CK8 protein, with 2 or 3 or so consecutive missense codons, and amino acid substitutions, in the protein sequence gene. There is a type of lung cancer (rhabdoid carcinoma) that has prior work published suggesting that this mutation is common therein in the linker portion of the filament, causing buidup of the mutant protein. Was thinking of this as a therapeutic target. Who should I talk to? Thanks my brother!

Gimme something good and I will copyedit three ... no, FIVE ... articles of your choice as a reward (a/k/a "bribe") for your humping for me :-)~

Best regards:Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There ara a number of papers on the subject of monoclonal antibodies for CA such as this {cite journal|last=Glynne-Jones|first=R|coauthors=Mawdsley, S; Harrison, M|title=Antiepidermal growth factor receptor radiosensitizers in rectal cancer.|journal=Anti-cancer drugs|date=2011 Apr|volume=22|issue=4|pages=330-40|pmid=21346551}} Have not seen anything about getting them into cells though will look when I have time. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I went to the article on genital warts which I sense you are in charge of.

The pictures there are worse case scenarios that seem designed to scare/disgust people. This is a problem because it doesn't educate the regular person on identifying warts on themselves. I have a strong stomach and couldn't look at the illustrations.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastlakeview (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No not in charge. Do you have images of less severe cases you think would be more appropriate?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check orexin and its very first source. Could you explain why the source is permitted on orexin and not permitted on migraine. I'm new to this. I'm also shocked to learn that Handbook of Behavior, Food and Nutrition is presumptively not scholarly or peer reviewed. Thanks for the tips. Happy editing. Bostonfiasco (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Wikipedia currently contains many pages that need improvement. If you wish to see example of what we are aiming for check out articles like dengue fever. Just because one article contains poor sourcing does not mean we should add these type of sources to other articles.

With respect to "Handbook of Behavior, Food and Nutrition" where was it stated that this source could not be used? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I'm extremely confused. How are the Federally Registered (FDA) Clinical Trials not a primary source which can be stated in a section titled "research." Isn't' there a distinction between primary source and secondary (peer reviewed and reputable). Aren't clinical trials the raw data (primary source) for future scholarly articles (perhaps even raw data for wikipedia)? In fact, persons with migraines might greatly benefit knowing exactly what clinical trials are out there, and have a link directly to them. A section titled "research" should include, at minimum, links to currently ongoing clinical trials (federally approved) - trials which are scrutinized by several scholars and the government, and will undergo further peer review during and after clinical trials. Part of the reason the "research" section of migraine is tiny may be because cutting edge research (Jan. 2012) naturally predates peer reviews journals...sometimes by 5 or more years. Just so I'm clear, it is not ok or sufficient to cite to an actual clinical trial merely to show that a trial exists; rather, one must wait till a journal publishes an article that mentions the clinical trial before one can provide a reference to that trial. Thanks for your help. Bostonfiasco (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do NOT typically use primary sources but rather use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. A phase 2 trial is simply not notable. If you look at the research section of dengue fever Dengue_fever#Research you will note that it is supported by secondary sources. So yes we wait until a review articles discusses the primary research (ie. sometime deems it sufficiently notable) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]