User talk:Doc James/Archive 144

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doc James. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 140

←

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

→

Archive 150

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia but experienced in care of children with cleft lip and/or palate. I would like to update the page with the up-to-date method for classification and phenotypic notation.

Thank you for informing me that Wikipedia recommends a certain order. I thought "Epidemiology" made more sense after "Causes," although I guess Wikipedia wants it all the way at the bottom for some reason.

Wikipedia says that "Classification" may have its own section or may appear under "Diagnosis." Where do you recommend that I place it?

Thanks. Cavalierex (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Cavalierex I have started a classification section under diagnosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Update 2019-01-21:

I created a first draft for the Classification section.

Thanks for your help and guidance!

Cavalierex (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Update 2019-01-21:

Thank you for creating a sub-page for Classification. It makes more sense to do so, as the topic is complex, and it warrants some detail in its presentation.

Regarding the references cited for this section, these are the most up-to-date references available and represent the modern appreciation for classification in CL/P. The lead author has participated in numerous task forces, including the Americleft Surgery group, North Carolina Cleft Outcomes Project / Project CHEER, the ICHOM Standard Set working group, and was a member of the Data Standards Committee at the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA). Each manuscript has many people on it. So whatever those groups recommended (even as proposals) represents well-reasoned recommendations by multidisciplinary specialists. If you like, I may pull some of the references that they cite within these review papers or position papers. I didn't want to add dozens of references on the main CL/P page, but now that you've broken this out separately, I could add some more detail if you think it is warranted.

Thanks!
Cavalierex (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Cavalierex what about the classification systems used by other groups such as WHO? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Where is the "copyrighted content" supposedly lifted from and
2. What gives you the impression I am being paid to edit Wikipedia?
3. What gives you the impression that I did not write this article?

While I am going to Assume good faith about the article's removal, I would suggest that in the future if you perform a Speedy Deletion that you put exactly where the supposed lifted content came from, ottherwise to accuse someone of WP:COI/WP:PAID violation is incredibly rude and damaging to that user's reputation. The Pony Toast (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:PonyToast did you write the content yourself? If you did feel free to restore it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Doc James Since I do not have access to previous versions of the deleted page, I cannot restore it to the way it was when it was deleted; i could only restore it to the way it was when it was in my Sandbox. there were dozens of tweaks and additions I made after editing. I am asking you to please restore the page. thanks. The Pony Toast (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You need to confirm that you wrote it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I have spent some time reviewing your Talk archives. It's very clear that your vision of the implementation of WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS and mine are different. As such I think it would be in the interests of peace and harmony to terminate the conversation and seek other redress from other parties. I hope that you consider offering an apology for your baseless accusations, but if you don't wish to, then I won't lose sleep. Good day. The Pony Toast (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating. So you have added text to Wikipedia, but are not willing to confirm you wrote it or who wrote it? This is getting stranger and stranger. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Since you continue to fail to follow copyright requirements plus are working for other paid editors I have now blocked your account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi James I noticed you reverted my edit. If you had checked out the ref I supplied you would have seen the cost fell in 2012 due to the patent running out. I couldn't check the existing ref but since my ref is to a Medical (GP) professional's news source of 50 years' standing I am convinced the cost is no way as you state. I've just been prescribed atoravastatin so hence my interest. Please check out my ref and let me know what you think. Mark^Dask 01:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Was using the British National Formulary User:markdask

For the generic it states "Atorvastatin 20 mg 28 tablet £24.64 DT = £0.70"

Were DT stands for "Drug Tariff price"

I guess the question is which is a better reflection of price. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

But maybe you are correct and we should be using DT for generics.[1]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

But than in the UK people do not really pay for their medications. They just have a 14.50 pound co-pay.[2] It is the NHS that pays.

User:Jfdwolff can you shed some light on this? User:markdask I have switched it to the DT price as of 2018. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

As of Feb 18 the "co-pay" prescription charge is a flat £8.80 for all working people over 18 and under 60. There are other exemptions also, including disabilities or chronic conditions. For generic medications that cost peanuts the £8.80 helps cover the pharmacists' costs as doctors, (GPs), do not dispense meds themselves. Thanks for your input James. Mark^Dask 05:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

"Co-pay" has no meaning in British english. The phrase is not used, except to refer to some sort of paymenbt for medication that Americans pay. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The prescription charges apply to the minority of NHS patients. They are not unique to any kind of medication so this is certainly the wrong place to emphasise this. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jfdwolff curious how much the NHS pays for a month of this medication on peoples behalf. Is it the DT price or the first price? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Discussion. A case of reputed academics mass-plagiarizing content from our articles and how to deal with that...... ∯WBG^converse 16:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is copied and pasted without attribution by 100s / 1000s of academics or sources. Typically these are not high quality sources or notable publishers. "ABC-CLIO" is not a serious publisher. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and that's pathetic, to hear:( But in light of our article; it seems pretty reputed at first glances. ∯WBG^converse 17:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the re-direct. It seems to be working now. The history needs to be merged by an admin (according to a new banner on the new project page) Link. Thanks again! JenOttawa (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

All good! Looks like someone just did it. Thanks again. JenOttawa (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Doc, per what I stated here, will you delete Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response 2? It's an earlier version of Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response, and is not needed. As the latter link shows, the discussion continued past were the earlier version stopped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The page Lethal midline granuloma info box lists this disease as in the Rheumatology specialty. It would be better classified in the Oncology specialty. I can't find how Rheumatology got in the info box. Could you help me make this change? Thanks (again) for all your help. joflaher (talk) a2:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:joflaher done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is what the cite tool generates: ^[1]

When this sort of garbled result happens (or when the cite tool doesn't identify a match), I use some other method to generate the citation. What do you suggest I do instead?Sbelknap (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes sometimes one need to fill in part of the meta data themselves User:Sbelknap Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

In this particular case, the cite tool returns the title and a garbled edition number and nothing else. Ottobib gives a bit more, but not complete (chapter author, chapter name, chapter page range missing) Here is the ottobib output:

Keystone, J. S. (2019). Travel medicine. Edinburgh: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-323-54696-6. So what fields would I add to generate a "complete" citation by wikipedia standards? I see a lot of incomplete/garbled/dead book cites in wikipedia.Sbelknap (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Here you are Kotton, Camille; Mileno, Maria (2019). "The Immunocompromised Traveler". Travel Medicine. Elsevier. pp. 269–277. ISBN 978-0-323-54696-6. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Done here[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You did manually, I assume. I attempted to add the editor, as that book is mostly described as Keystone. How do I fix the CSS errors? Sbelknap (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Sbelknap not see a CSS error? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If one rolls the mouse over the citation to the Travel Medicine book, there is a CS1 maint message after the cite: Kotton, Camille Nelson; Mileno, Maria Denise; Keystone, J. S. (editor) (2019). "The Immunocompromised Traveler". Travel medicine. Edinburgh: Elsevier. pp. 269–277. ISBN 978-0-323-54696-6.CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link) Sbelknap (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay see it and fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear MrDoc James I found you nominated some articles for wikijournal. I am thinking maybe we can make collaboration to write and develop some articles. I'm Helito Phd student in japan Helito (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey User:Helito Do you propose writing in Japanese or in English? I will be in Japan again in May if you wish to discuss in person. Am doing a fair bit of work getting medical content translated into Japanese. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your response. I plan to write in English, because I'm not Japanese. Where will you hold the event? I'm staying in Nara. If you will held the event in Kyoto or Osaka, it will be very good. P.S I work on Pharmaceutical and molecular biology research Helito (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Helito Will fly in and out of Tokyo. Not 100% sure were I will be going yet.
    • What sort of articles are you interested in developing collaboratively? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Doc James I'm interested to develop an article about "Immune system". I have organized with update version. Please kindly check. I'm really glad if I can write and develop this article with you. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_Preprints/Immune_system Helito (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Helito fairly out of my area of experience. I typically stick with disease related articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

thank you Doc James for everything you do to help all editors,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we find a list of the Cure Award recipients at any point EXCEPT contributors' talk pages? MaynardClark (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@MaynardClark:Do you mean the page linked in this text: "top ~250 medical editors"? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I find it mildly amusing that you posted this on your talk page and thanked yourself, but admittedly, I'm well aware that this was automated. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Seppi333 Yup I used the massmessanger tool on meta. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

IANAL. My understanding is that the FDA-approved Full Prescribing Information for a drug is in the public domain under the Merger Doctrine. Is there an expert at Wikipedia who could opine on this?Sbelknap (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I spoke to staff at the NIH and they said it was not under an open license User:Sbelknap. User:Diannaa is by far the expert on these things. Diannaa we are discussing this[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I was a Senior Scientist at the American Medical Association at one time. In this capacity, I wrote and edited articles in the AMA Drug Evaluations book (now defunct). My understanding from this experience is that lists of information in the Full Prescribing Information (i.e., the "package insert") for FDA-approved drugs falls under the merger doctrine, and for this reason is in the public domain. It would be very helpful to resolve this, as if wikipedia can use this information (with appropriate citation), it would considerably improve the adverse drug effect information we provide in our medical articles. Sbelknap (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

See, for example, Kepner-Tregoe, 203 U.S.P.Q. at 131, 134, which opines that there is no societal value in alternatively expressing simple ideas with “outlandish methods using eccentric styles.” In summary, “where an explanation of a technical matter is at issue, the simpler the language, the more nearly idea and expression coincide.” Sbelknap (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree User:Sbelknap. If this was in the public domain that would be super useful. User:Moonriddengirl can you comment?

We are very very conservative when it comes to copyright and thus paraphrasing until we get a position on this is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

10-4… Sbelknap (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is a possibly relevant article on the merger doctrine: [5] Sbelknap (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This stuff can be paraphrased though... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sbelknap discussed with a copyright lawyer who feels that as these are prepared by the companies in question the copyright would be owned by said companies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Which is a separate issue. Under the merger doctrine, would not this copyrighted material be in the public domain? Sbelknap (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Not as far as I am aware. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The specific issue here is the merger doctrine. It appears to me (a non-attorney) that under the merger doctrine, lists of adverse effects in the full prescribing information would be in the public domain. It would be helpful if some person with specific expertise regarding the merger doctrine and full prescribing information would opine. Sbelknap (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the copyright hyperlink at the bottom of DailyMed saying Government information at NLM Web sites is in the public domain..

Best regards--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 06:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:It's gonna be awesome Yes it is a little tricky. The key is "Government information at NLM Web sites"

Those documents are produced by a third party which holds the copyright and thus not government info. The government is just hosting a copy.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

How to tell if the content is government information? According to self-introduction to DailyMed, DailyMed is the official provider of FDA label information (package inserts). Is it saying those documents are FDA's properties? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 16:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:It's gonna be awesome We are looking at this ref.[6]

If you look at this version[7] at the bottom right it says "Par Pharmaceutical, Inc". That is the organization who wrote it. I have discussed this with the NIH. These labels are prepared for the FDA not created by the FDA.

You just need to paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Felodipine is a calcium antagonist (calcium channel blocker). Felodipine is a dihydropyridine derivative that is chemically described as ± ethyl methyl 4-(2,3-dichlorophenyl)-1,4-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-3,5-pyridinedicarboxylate. Its molecular formula is C18H19Cl2NO4 and its structural formula is:

— Packager: Jubilant Cadista Pharmaceuticals Inc.

​Felodipine is a calcium antagonist (calcium channel blocker). Felodipine is a dihydropyridine derivative that is chemically described as ± ethyl methyl 4-(2,3-dichlorophenyl) -1,4-dihydro-2, 6-dimethyl-3, 5- pyridinedicarboxylate. Its empirical formula is C 18H 19Cl 2NO 4 and its structural formula is:

— Packager: Yiling Pharmaceutical, Inc.

I think there are much overlaps between the same products of the two companies. I assume the overlapping part is under public domain. How do you think? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 02:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe they are plagiarizing one another. We should simple paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright. But I am aware that such plagiarizing are very common on DailyMed, I recommend you search for a drug name such as diltiazem and be prepared to get surprised. XD I mean, as a non-native English speaker, paraphrase can be harder than making sure the fact that whether or not the provided material is in the public domain. But in this case, I might try. Nevertheless, if it's convenient to you, I hope you would kindly discuss the plagiarizing issue on DailyMed with NIH someday in the future. Best regards. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 16:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

User:It's gonna be awesome I have discussed it with staff at the NIH. Not sure what you mean by "plagiarizing are very common on DailyMed"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Searching for Diltiazem on DailyMed, there are significant overlaps in contents of packet inserts/labels/leaflets between the same products of many companies. Thanks for the time. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That does not mean that it is under an open license or that we do not have to paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. Just curious about how could the copyright lawyers in those companies allow it to happen. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

We have controls on copyright within the Wikimedia movement that are as strict if not stricter than any other entity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I noticed a conflicting statements in Angiotensin II receptor blocker as follows:

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), also known as angiotensin II receptor antagonists, AT1 receptor antagonists or sartans, are a group of pharmaceuticals that modulate the renin–angiotensin system. Their main uses are in the treatment of hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetic nephropathy (kidney damage due to diabetes) and congestive heart failure. They block the activation of AT1 receptors, preventing the binding of angiotensin II.

...... Adverse effects[edit | QuickEdit]

This class of drugs is usually well tolerated. Common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) include: dizziness, headache, and/or hyperkalemia. Infrequent ADRs associated with therapy include: first dose orthostatic hypotension, rash, diarrhea, dyspepsia, abnormal liver function, muscle cramp, myalgia, back pain, insomnia, decreased hemoglobin levels, renal impairment, pharyngitis, and/or nasal congestion.[16]

---

It's weird when a drug indicated for hypertension due to kidney/renal damage could end up further impair the kidney/renal. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes User:It's gonna be awesome it can cause as a side effect a problem it is also used to try to prevent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the time! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Infobox research institute}} redirects to {{Infobox laboratory}} which is already in both Category:Education infobox templates and Category:Organization infobox templates. What usefulness is there in having the redirect in those categories as well? --Gonnym (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This[8] broke all the pages that template was used on. One should not redirect a infobox template to an article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Completely didn't even notice I removed the template prefix. Thanks for the revert on that! --Gonnym (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

Hello Doc James,

I perfectly understand your policy of keeping Wikipedia publications and sources as much reliable as possible. I am not the author of the CHIVA method. As my mother had successfully undergone the operation when she was suffering of severe veinous insufficiency, I discovered that CHIVA was not on the encyclopedia in english language.. Consequently, I made an extensive research and in view of the favorable randomized controlled trials, in my opinion, they were pertinent information to appear in the encyclopedia. I am not a doctor (I am an engineer in electronics and a sound engineer), but I have an interest in medicine since my adolescence. I spent a considerable lot of time in learning about CHIVA method, having seen how effective it had been on my mother who was also suffering of leg veinous ulcers. Her veins were kept intact. In life my attitude id doing my best in whatever I do. Thus, when I added sources in my publication, I considered that those of NCBI were worth adding. I'll not offend you in describing what NCBI and PubMed are. (PubMed is a full subject in Wikipedia) I also dicovered that many external sources provide informations on the CHIVA method. And to me, it was usefull to add a short description of what CHIVA operation is, as an alternative method to other treatments (there is a full article on Phlebectomy on the Encyclopedia, as well as on several other veinous insufficiency treatment methods). It is in your role and responsability to decide whether this article can be usefull for the general knowledge of the various methods of improving patient conditions. And I do respect your role in deciding if such above sources can be reliable enough to appear in the Encyclopedia.. With my humble consideration.--Geiss (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Please use only high quality secondary sources such as pubmed indexed review articles in reliable journals. Rather than primary sources.

User:Geiss you have not meet or work with the individual in question? Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Would you consider adding a reference to this article "CHIVA strategy in chronic venous disease treatment: instructions for users" I just discovered using Google ? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261801425_CHIVA_strategy_in_chronic_venous_disease_treatment_instructions_for_users Geiss (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yah that would be okay. What do you want to use it say? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your open mind Doc James. Basically, CHIVA is an operation. As the above page is about the technique of the CHIVA operation as you have seen, it might be used as a reference to a short descrition of the involved process, at your will. What would you think os something like this ?

The objective of the CHIVA method is to precisely ascertain the hemodynamic disorder and to restore the venous function balance, in order to cure the symptoms of the venous insufficiency, such as varicose veins, edema, ulcers, and to reduce recurrences. It relies on an accurate Duplex Ultrasound assessment and a mapping of the hemodynamic disorders. Then a minimally invasive operation is performed, under local anesthesia, through a few aesthetic incisions, without venous ablation. Usually, one to four ligations are decided precisely on some of the veins, according to the specific mapping of each individual.

On the personal side, I am highly respectful of the whole Wikipedia adventure, which I admire as one of the major way of contribution to the human knowledge. Hence my humble participation attempt.Geiss (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

What was the matter with my simple contribution to the etymology of the word 'rickets'?

I provided the source material in full: Aubrey' s Brief Lives, edited by Oliver Lawson Dick, Seckburg and Warburg 1950.

The volume is available on Archive.org for anyone to read.

I spent a good deal of time making this contribution and provided full bibliographical information in my text.

It seems I did not follow some sort of Byzantine ritual in providing the information. Alas, it is entirely your loss, as I am unwilling to jump through a course of beaurocratic hoops to restore the text.

Salud,

Joel Cowan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.167.74 (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Claudius321 I am unclear what you were trying to say about Etymology here. Are you stating that this was the first usage of the term? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Nasal_septum_deviation#Diagnosis.--Hildeoc (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree could use some work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I've let the above user know that they should make their edits more constructive.

Regards,

Samsara 19:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a page I've worked on along with many other biographical stubs from other people. My primary focus is expanding content about people from South Africa and their careers. There was also other people who edited this page to improve the quality and expand it. Please help me clarify the clean-up requested.

Ramonthomas 13:12 6 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Heshiv was a undisclosed paid editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Amlodipine primarily dilates peripheral arteries than coronary arteries. Myocardial infraction is more than often due to abnormal narrowing of coronary arteries. I see the lead section of amlodipine stating that MI is one of the adverse effects of amlodipine. How could it be? It's conflicting. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ref says "Possible worsening of angina or acute MI, particularly in patients with severe obstructive CAD, upon initiation or dosage increase of amlodipine."[9]

It works to decrease BP by "Amlodipine is a peripheral arterial vasodilator; acts directly on vascular smooth muscle causing reduction in peripheral vascular resistance and BP"

And may "Amlodipine blocks constriction and restores blood flow in coronary arteries".

So it depends on the situation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Gratitude! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 06:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it okay to redirect dark urine and abnormal urinary color to hematuria? For the context, please refer to cold agglutinin disease. Regards. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 15:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

There are many causes of abnormal urine color and dark urine other than hematuria. So I would say no User:It's gonna be awesome Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I see. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 05:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi James, I was wondering if you could share some thoughts on this medical BLP. This was created about a year ago by an editor with very few edits. It was initially somewhat promotional, but they got toned down. I'm still not convinced if this meet notability, which hinges very much on an earlier claim for the "invention" of a new technique to treat traumatic brain injury. In terms of the subject I am totally out of my depth. I just have a gut feeling that this is more on the promo side than anything else. Many thanks. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Jake Brockman does not look really notable. Did not invent the procedure as was done already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)