User talk:Doc James

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Translation
Main page		   Progress
(full)		   Progress
(short)		   Those Involved
(sign up)		   Integration guides   Newsletter  

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Traffic comparison graphic[edit]

(left) A comparison of unique visitors for Wikipedia's medical content versus that of other popular health sites. March 2013 (right) A comparison of pageviews for Wikipedia's medical content versus that of other healthcare sites. March 2013

You made these wonderful graphics. I use them often.

I showed them to some people and they asked about CDC data, asking where that website fits. Can you comment - did you consider putting the CDC traffic in this chart? Why is the CDC absent?

The citation for the file mentions Alexa Internet. I thought I heard you say that you generated traffic comparisons from comScore. Did you ever publish any data from comScore, or am I confusing your comparisons with those from the WMF?

File:Change in medical pageviews from 2009 until 2014.png is very useful and I am showing this as well. Do you know if the data behind this chart is solely derived from the WMF's own counts? Is any of this data from another service, like comScore?

Thanks for any insight that you can share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure User:Bluerasberry
  • I initially created the graphs using Alexa.com data. Alexa however no longer provides sufficient free access to generate these. CDC had a significantly lower readership than the NIH thus I did not include it (only using one US gov source).
  • The new versions are based on similarweb data and come to more or less the same conclusions. You can see the published version here [1]
  • File:Change in medical pageviews from 2009 until 2014.png is entirely based on WMF data.
  • I asked for access to comScore but was never able to get it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
By the way here is CDC.gov at 29M pageviews per month
And the NIH.gov at 274M pageviews per month.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
And here are the calculations behind the graph [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
All very helpful. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ovarian cyst[edit]

Hello James. I rearranged the epidemiology section 2/2 Richiez comments on my talk page. Will defer to your arrangement, but just by way of explanation. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

We typically organize articles per WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Permanent weight loss - "really poor sources"[edit]

On the subject of "Weight Loss", you undid most of the references I added:

Permanent Weight loss[edit]

Whether or not permanent weight loss is possible is a hotly contested subject. Meta-studies show that the outlook is bleak but modest long term weight loss e.g. of 5% is possible without bariatric surgery: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

The only explanation I could find is "trimmed the really poor sources". Surely an official press release from UCLA, a meta-study, would be considered a good source? On such a contentious subject, meta-studies should be given precedence, which is why I think the UCLA study is the most important reference. Also, don't you consider CBC a good source? One of the main sources for that story seems to have been: "University of Alberta professor Tim Caulfield". It would be a shame not to include that story because it's a very readable article.

Tcotco (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If you notice my edit User:Tcotco as seen here [3] I just removed a lot of the popular press. I did not remove a meta study as it was not referenced.
Looking into it further, the study you do reference is not a meta study [4]
Press releases should never be used. I have found the review. Summarized it. Added that summary and properly formatted the reference. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

dewiki Persönliche Bekanntschaften (personal acquaintances) program[edit]

Please join the dewiki personal acquaintances program. For English speaking people it's a little bit tricky to do the first step:

  1. go in dewiki to your personal Preferences (Einstellungen)
  2. select the tab "Helferlein" (#mw-prefsection-gadgets)
  3. Please activate in the section "Veränderung der Oberfläche" the Checkbox "Erweiterte Benutzeroberfläche für Persönliche Bekanntschaften aktivieren, um Bestätigungen hier vornehmen zu können."
  4. Open the Link de:Wikipedia:Persönliche Bekanntschaften/neue_Anfragen. you should see your Username on this site, until a bot will register your username in wikilabs. (~15-30min)
  5. After the Bot made it's job, you can confirm personally known Users, at least de:User:Tobias 1984, de:User:MBq, de:User:Andrea Kamphuis, de:User:Hubertl and user:Braveheart.
  6. If a other user confirm your acquaintances, you will get a message from a bot at your german talk page de:BD:Doc James, or at this wikilabs link: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pb/index.py?p=user&id=620540

good luck Boshomi (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I have done it right User:Boshomi Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
A API-change switched the bot off, but now it works fine again. Now you are able to confirm users at de:WP:PB/A. This Link works also [5]Boshomi (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Had to share..[edit]

Thought you might like this. This is what my instructor wrote on a recent microbiology assignment:

This was a comment in the instructions for a homework assignment by my college microbiology instructor-I didn't do what he said since I edit some of these articles myself and so know that they are reliable! 9/2015

I didn't follow his instructions because I edit microbiology articles and know they are typically pretty reliable. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes unfortunate. The prof should say use WP responsible with the understanding that parts of it may be wrong rather than do not us it at all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Field study, specialty[edit]

What type of Doc are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.207.141 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Details are here User:Doc James Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Translation "Guinea Worm Disease"[edit]

Hi Doc James, we are compiling a list of medical translations done so far in Dagbani and I'm wondering where to include Nyalfu (Guinea Worm Disease) in our Health & Medicine list. Could it be a neglected disease? Thanks —M@sssly✉ 23:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Masssly It is technically known as dracunculiasis and yes is a neglected tropical disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes I realized that after I left this message. Thanks—M@sssly✉ 11:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness[edit]

I thought of you while reading about Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness. I didn't see you in the article history and thought this might be a good one for your nightstand. No problems there, in fact, it has been a joy watching another editor improve the article over the past few days. I'd be curious as to what your thoughts are concerning the mysterious illness...and of course, if you can help improve the article that would also be welcome. Face-smile.svg
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah I did not realize that the polio diagnosis was in dispute. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

James, could you please direct me to a resource with guidelines on submitting original diagrams or illustrations? I have been looking through Wikimedia Commons, but most of the resources I've come across have to do with photographs. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If you create good illustrations or diagrams and yes please upload. I have created a few simple ones such as seen here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that is helpful. Is there any formal wikipedia policy about diagrams? I typically use Adobe Photoshop. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Not that I know of. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Doc James. Please check your email – you've got mail! The subject is Subject Line.
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.

Reminder![edit]

Information icon Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! ... just because this edit [7] with no edit summary and a lot of content removed made me check if it was vandalism! Cheers, Stephenb (Talk) 21:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Skeptoid[edit]

You don't like my use of Template:Skeptoid. Fine, we can talk about that on its deletion discussion. But why are you also systematically deleting my edits that have nothing to do with that?! —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 16:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Which edit was that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes here it is [8]. My apologies on that one User:JonathanDP81 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Honey bucket to bucket toilet move[edit]

I've pinged you there on the article talk page. I think this move was premature and based on faulty evidence. I'm requesting the move be undone and submitted to a formal WP:RM so it can be advertised for a fuller discussion. Msnicki (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Bucket toilet[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Bucket toilet. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Msnicki (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Cannabis Sidebar[edit]

Many pages have a sidebar and a bottom bar it just allows for more information. Please return the cannabis sidebar.Mangokeylime (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

We should get consensus first as it is not recommended. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Who should we get it from?Mangokeylime (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Also what exactly is wrong with the psychedelic sidebar?Mangokeylime (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Duplicates content at the bottom which should remain at the bottom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Clonazepam false allegations[edit]

Hi there Doc, how is your vacation going? I hope you are all right. AFAIC you should be also a sysop: could you please check this very last edit to the "Clonazepam" article where I have added the {{failed verification}} template about the allegedly "referenced" info "(...) In many areas of the world it is commonly used as a recreational drug. (...)". I believe that giving away unreferenced info like this is potentially very dangerous. Thanks.   M aurice   Carbonaro  10:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a ref and it says "In several countries, prescription and use is now severely limited due to abusive recreational use of clonazepam." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
This ref says "frequently abused" [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence the WP:RM discussion at Talk:Honey bucket. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. This post was inappropriate. Msnicki (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah no. I informed a project to which the discussion pertains. I than provided the facts "honey bucket" is a euphemism as no honey is going in said bucket. This was just a brief summary of the opening remarks of the RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015[edit]

Carbapenems[edit]

Working on article above, appreciate your input as it seems like one in which errors would not be a good thing. If there is time, will move on to the individual carbapenems and then to piperacillin-tazobactam. 2601:643:8100:8AF4:163:9E9B:3AC6:210B (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Spirulina[edit]

Thanks for your suggestion, regarding my edits on spirulina article. But the article contains "ridiculous" claims, as observed by some other editor and I think this is to be attended (statement like spirulina is 30 times costlies) by persons with medical background, like you. As I donot have medical background, I will not touch any medical content of the article. Rayabhari (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

We have a guideline that states that health claims require secondary sources. Thus reason why all the primary research was removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Pertussis ten weeks/100 days[edit]

Thanks ;) Huw Powell (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree your wording was better. Thank you User:Huw Powell :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata[edit]

  • Ok, now I'm really confused.
  • My Q4 sought to clarify the basic goal: if we will at some point rely on the wikidata repository to support the verification of wikipedia article assertions, we will have to be able to trust that it is stable and resistant to vandalism. A revision history will have to be readily accessible or we will have simply amplified the {{cite pmid}} problem, spreading across language versions.
  • Did your A6 mean you don't want metadata to flow from the Wikidata repository to the Wikipedia citations, or only that you don't want users to have to click on a link to see the metadata? I had been thinking that a new version of {{cite journal}} (or equivalent) would pull in and format that metadata, so the reader would see much the same thing as now, but on all languages implementing cite journal. An inferior alternative would be to one-time flow the metadata values into the wikipedia article's wikitext, but similarly that's almost as bad as the present {{cite pmid}} situation.

LeadSongDog come howl! 18:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

    • A4 This is something I would see as for discussion in a few years. There is a lot that needs to be done before it could be considered. Wikidata is still proving itself. The short term goal is for research purposes independent of WP and for a backend for bots.
    • A6 I am not proposing that meta data flow from WD to WP. It does have some possible benefits in that 1) maybe everyone could view refs in the style they like 2) I like the metadata to be seen within WP articles when I hit edit. I guess VE could pull from WD without changing presentation but I do not use VE.
    • Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
      • So then this has nothing to do with WP, just wikidata? In that case the discussion should probably not have been on WP. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
        • The discussion was on Wikidata with a heads up placed at WT:MED because of the overlap. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Well, then. I really did not understand what your intentions were, so I'm glad I asked. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes this was why I started the proposal with it being "NOT about WPs references being pulled from Wikidata". There are a lot of people asking for a structured reference meta data. It is also part of the goal of the project on Wikidata per here. I realize that some on WP do not care about this which is okay to. This proposal will not affect WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal acquaintances: you are confirmed![edit]

People icon.svg

Hello Doc James, You are now confirmed! Welcome!

  • You can add this box to your userpage: {{User:Romaine/Persönliche Bekanntschaften/box}} This works on de-wiki, en-wiki, fr-wiki, nl-wiki, Commons, Meta, Wikidata, WMBE-wiki, WMNL-wiki and can be requested on other wiki's.
  • The list of English participants is on Wikipedia:Personal acquaintances/Participants.
    • To stay informed, add this page to your watchlist.
  • For a complete overview of all participants, see here.
  • You can confirm others at: this page.

Romaine (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Romaine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

using reliable sources[edit]

Related to reference from: http://offlineclinic.com/blumbergs-sign-rebound-tenderness/

Please elaborate how do you define a "reliable" source?

I corrected errors on related wikipedia articles through http://offlineclinic.com/ too.

I simply corrected the link (to the same page with a different permalink now).

Waiting to discuss :)

Stay blessed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjutsu (talk • contribs) 12:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources are described in WP:MEDRS. Basically the preferred sources, whenever possible, are review articles in top medical or scientific journals. Blog posts will very rarely be considered reliable sources. Looie496 (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hand washing[edit]

Dr James I am a retired nuclear engineer that has developed,patented and tested a Germ-Safe door handle to replace hi -traffic 'grab-handles' and thereby drastically reduce public and healthcare hand contamination. See www.ForTheUS.com. This is a third way along with washing and sanitizing. I need to have my hands-free handle used and reported on by medical personnel. Any suggestions? This handle could save many lives. John S Buck Ca nuclear license NU1895. HealthyFingers@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B068:9867:557D:839F:4590:34B5 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the evidence for it? Any review articles on the topic? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&oldid=686266726"