This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
No unique names 04:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
It was really appreciable that you have participated in editing Lymphoma. Currently the article is in a better shape. I have made a few further edits and it seems that a lot more cleanup is required. I edit Wikipedia less frequently compared to you, so I would be glad if you could leave me some suggestions. Diptanshu Talk 09:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Shortly back, I have created an article called Homing (hematopoietic). I would be glad if you participate in editing the article. Diptanshu Talk 10:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carpal tunnel syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B6 ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
An IP just changed the ICD-9 code for Behçet's disease with this edit summary; Changed outdated ICD-9 code. No research exists to indicate Behcet's is caused by any known infection and currently remains medically unclassified. These codes were written decades ago in the US.. ~JB The previous version's code is for Behçet's disease, but the version's code just states Autoimmune disease, not elsewhere classified This seems odd. Would you please verify this? edit diff Much appreciated. Jim1138 ( talk) 04:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry antipodean Xmas | |
hope yours is/was fun, and you had a good turkey :) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Fecal incontinence/GA1. I don't think lesion knew that "pinging" was slang for contact me on my talk page. They replied there that they were ready. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Just a note to let you know that I received your message and will make sure that I pay attention to that. Thank you for pointing that out to me; I'm still learning my way around here.( GlassLadyBug ( talk) 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC))
Why was the revision on 12/28/12 by Fereydoon.Roohi@Downstate.edu deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFRoo ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Saw this user pop up on my watchlist on the Asthma page, not sure what to make of it, but wanted to make sure you knew about it. Yobol ( talk) 20:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Medicine banner is added to Project Page, feel free to update it or remove it.
Do we have banners for Wiki Med?
AbhiSuryawanshi (
talk)
09:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, You reverted my changes to colorectal cancer saying 'references required'. Are you asking for references in this article (maybe because you doubted my additions were true) or because they weren't easy to find in the linked articles ? Also, I'd be grateful, if you revert my changes, if you'd mention it on my talk page please so I can deal with it while it's fresh in my mind. - Rod57 ( talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I hope that you had a nice Christmas and that you have a Happy New Year. :-)-- MrADHD | T@1k? 14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes I thought when I was writing the references for the heart disease pages, that I should have referenced the actual studies they reference with their proof directly, rather than the secondary source talking about the studies.
Would it be worth going back and creating direct links to the studies related to the cause of heart disease, that this article referenced, at some later time? (Are fairly cut and dry studies acceptable references?)
Just hit me on a whim, to try and correct some of our long held seeming misperceptions about the topic having discovered this research (such as that heart disease is caused by excessive LDL, when its more accurately caused by high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome etc and a lack of certain anti-oxidants ie oxLDL, or so it now appears). The risk factors still apply, but they are no longer viable as the actual cause (apart from perhaps high blood pressure, which is part of the cause)
Admitedly more research needs to be done now that we have a new angle to look at this phenomena from, to give it more weight (especially with long held perceptions)
(The nicotine thing is something I became aware of recently, that nicotine on its own, say via an e-cig, is not anywhere near as addictive as smoking - its the mao inhibition that makes smoking tobacco work like it does - another misperception, and thankfully someone had already referenced that one with a study)
I appreciate you dropping me a note :)
Thanks, Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.215.200 ( talk) 23:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!-- Pharos ( talk) 02:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Given my apology to Drmies and the conversation you chose to post at the end of, what productive perspective do you feel you're adding? Ironholds ( talk) 06:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Just saw this, Doc ... I was encouraged that at least Ironholds issued what looked like a genuine apology, while the other admin in the other block did not, and likely will not. So at this juncture, I'm inclined towards feeling better about Ironholds than the other, but yes ... efforts to help clarify blocking policy so that trigger-happy admins don't go around making unhelpful blocks would be a good thing. I don't have the time or inclination to take on that issue while the disruption at FAC continues ... I'd like to be able to just get back to reviewing articles at FAC and FAR, since the standards have dropped, and work on medical articles without Education Program interference. I appreciate your efforts to help clarify blocking policy, and I'm sorry I don't have the energy to join in that effort right now. I hope Drmies and all of the unfairly blocked will be able to put it behind them and welcome in a New Year. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, not sure what to think of [1] - you probably know a lot more than me. Richiez ( talk) 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
That was my initial thought as well, but in thinking more about this I changed my mind. Since old versions of Wikipedia pages are not normally indexed by search engines, it would make it much more difficult to find someone if the pages were expunged. Boghog ( talk) 08:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I've reported this at WP:ANI. [7] Halo Jerk1 ( talk) 21:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
As someone who has been blocked in the not to distant past I wanted to tell you that I do not know how to respond to your proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Alteration_to_the_block_policy
Here is a reference to how I was blocked: User_talk:Ottawahitech#Username_sounds_like_an_organization
In your opinion was I notified in advance of the block or not? - (I was in shock when it happened, so maybe I am naive?) Ottawahitech ( talk) 03:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't you have confined your proposal to established or long term content editors? It is not going to succeed in its current form. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 03:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Best wishes for the New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at
FAC,
FAR and
TFA requests.
Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the
FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! |
Regarding your image upload of psoriasis, do you recall what part of the body the image recorded? (i'm guessing it's the knee..), Thank-You-- Anuhek ( talk) 23:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings - You left a message on my talk page, and I'm hoping you can enlighten me. It's a large reference, and I can feel that you're concerned about something in particular. Can you enlighten me? Perhaps I can help or fix something. Santamoly ( talk) 08:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you have access to the full article "Efficacy of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines"? I just read the entire article and could not find a single justification for the 70% figure. Perhaps there is a justification somewhere, I could not find it on Google Scholar. They should not have been allowed to state such a figure in the abstract without repeating it in the introduction and giving a proper reference to studies which justify it. It is a bad reference, and is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.227.218 ( talk) 14:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
If you don't have access to the article, I can email to you. Please indicate how they arrived at the 70% figure. If you can't based on that article, it's a bad reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.227.218 ( talk) 14:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I am writing a manuscript and would like to reference the 70% number. Referencing "Efficacy of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines" will not be accepted by the journal editors where I am submitting. I thought that the authors of this paper would reference the study that showed that 70% was the right number. They don't. I'm not disputing the number, by the way, I'm simply saying that we need a link to the original study (which is probably much more nuanced than just ~70%). 132.216.227.218 ( talk) 14:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) BTW, the journal in which this article is published is not a high quality journal (impact Factor: 1.646, barely high than Medical Hypotheses). 132.216.227.218 ( talk) 14:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this. 132.216.227.218 ( talk) 14:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Martlau ( talk) 22:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS secondary sources from the last 5 years are needed. Cheers Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The Medicine Barnstar | ||
Presenting you this barnstar for your tireless contributions to Medicine-related articles. Eukesh ( talk) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC) |
Debilitating fatigue can have a duration of two to three months, particularly in adults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJFBrooks ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doc James. I recently left a new message regarding the formatting of regional variation in standards of care articles, that can be found at WT:MED. Thanks for your feedback. Best. GT67 ( talk) 23:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course the organizations who provide content provide well referenced content.
And of course, in Germany The Big Lie was also well referenced, but where are we when life expectancy in America, without any exposure to tobacco, is 78.9 years and the 22.1% risk of lung cancer among male smokers' is referenced' to the age of 85? And that the comparative to non-smoking European males does not indicate whether they are still alive, only that they did not die from lung cancer. Why are we crossing the pond for the comparative? Because American Life Expectancy is only 78.9 years?
The well referenced data, does it take into account the disproportionate percentage among smokers of high stressed individuals?
There is a hell of a lot of money to be had for contradicting The People now, ain't there?
Slearwig ( talk) 03:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you aren't the right editor because this is an issue with Academia as it relates to medicine (and a different form of medicine than you are probably experienced with), but you were the most qualified person I could think of. Can you take a look at User talk:Ryan Vesey#Darold Treffert and offer some advice if you have any? Thanks, Ryan Vesey 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not certain to what extent you're proficient in endocrinology, but would you mind stopping by this discussion? I'm substantially convinced that we should not be depicting such a poorly understood physiological process in black and white terms, especially not in this context and in spite of contradictory data. — C M B J 08:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Siilinsilmä ( talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)You contacted me months ago anout my "contribution" to Wikipedia article on Tularemia. I am sorry I did not answer earlier, but I have been too busy to even notice it. I am not too familiar with all the tricks of Wikipedia as simple as they may be, and for some reason I made a real mess on this one. It was either leaving my lines without notes or erasing the all the notes from the whole text.
My original notes were from national statistics of Sweden and Finland. Tularemia is rather well known in mid to northern Finland, alhough we call it Jänisrutto (Hare-plague), obviously, it kills a lot of hares. I have known its existense as long as I remember and my sister got it just days before I wrote my entry.
Yours, Siilinsilmä i.e. Anne Aurasmaa Ph.D.
Siilinsilmä ( talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
since cs has been cleared by fda for external use, its no longer belongs to alternative medicine. Though the internal use by mouth continues to belongs to alternative medicine. Yet, all other forms of silver are used by doctors, like for example for burns. So, could you please add a suitable category? Ryanspir ( talk) 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Where would you recommend I place research done on blood oxygenation without respiration? An an emphysema patient, it seems to apply to progress toward a cure (or workaround in this case). I can't imagine where else on Wikipedia I would look this up, if I were searching for info on progress made by the research community. 174.239.32.140 ( talk) 14:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Where can I look up information on what a "proper secondary source" is? 71.205.175.33 ( talk) 15:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi James,
Pleasure to meet you today! Thanks for making it out to UCSF!
Are these talk pages conversations public?
HeatherLogghe ( talk) 00:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, James! I’m very glad to have met a Wikipedian who leaves in an English-speaking country and is a physician by profession. Many thanks for your helpful reference. And Theodore Roosevelt’s words you find inspiring are very good, in my estimation. -- SU ltd. ( talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doc, I am wondering if you can give me your thoughts - in the U.K an extremely high profile case involving a major celebrity figure who turned out to be a psychopathic narcissistic prolific sexual abuser has just been reported on by the government. You may be wondering what the problem is. The problem is this multimillion pound enquiry and final report contains large quantities of plagiarised text from wikipedia!!! Or at least that is what one person is raising on the this talk page, Talk:Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal#Confirmation. I am wondering whether you could have a look and see if this is indeed the case as I am not good when it comes to interpretations of legal policies of wikipedia and I know that you have knowledge in this area.-- MrADHD | T@1k? 16:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, DocJames. In the wake of Wikipedian Aaron Swartz's suicide on Friday -- featured in remembering Aaron Swartz -- I've been wondering what we can do to help prevent similar tragedies in the future, in our community and in the world at large.
Noting that Google, Yahoo, and Ask have special links to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline when they get queries for "suicide", I thought it would make sense to add a simple but prominent link to suicide.
There are archives of conversations on the subject on Talk:Suicide, and specifically I've seen you say that "we don't link to hotlines". I wasn't able to find a clear summary of why that is, though. It feels like suicide might be a special case, and since we have list of suicide crisis lines it could even be a wiki link. -- ESP ( talk) 19:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
No unique names 04:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
It was really appreciable that you have participated in editing Lymphoma. Currently the article is in a better shape. I have made a few further edits and it seems that a lot more cleanup is required. I edit Wikipedia less frequently compared to you, so I would be glad if you could leave me some suggestions. Diptanshu Talk 09:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Shortly back, I have created an article called Homing (hematopoietic). I would be glad if you participate in editing the article. Diptanshu Talk 10:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carpal tunnel syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B6 ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
An IP just changed the ICD-9 code for Behçet's disease with this edit summary; Changed outdated ICD-9 code. No research exists to indicate Behcet's is caused by any known infection and currently remains medically unclassified. These codes were written decades ago in the US.. ~JB The previous version's code is for Behçet's disease, but the version's code just states Autoimmune disease, not elsewhere classified This seems odd. Would you please verify this? edit diff Much appreciated. Jim1138 ( talk) 04:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry antipodean Xmas | |
hope yours is/was fun, and you had a good turkey :) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Fecal incontinence/GA1. I don't think lesion knew that "pinging" was slang for contact me on my talk page. They replied there that they were ready. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Just a note to let you know that I received your message and will make sure that I pay attention to that. Thank you for pointing that out to me; I'm still learning my way around here.( GlassLadyBug ( talk) 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC))
Why was the revision on 12/28/12 by Fereydoon.Roohi@Downstate.edu deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFRoo ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Saw this user pop up on my watchlist on the Asthma page, not sure what to make of it, but wanted to make sure you knew about it. Yobol ( talk) 20:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Medicine banner is added to Project Page, feel free to update it or remove it.
Do we have banners for Wiki Med?
AbhiSuryawanshi (
talk)
09:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, You reverted my changes to colorectal cancer saying 'references required'. Are you asking for references in this article (maybe because you doubted my additions were true) or because they weren't easy to find in the linked articles ? Also, I'd be grateful, if you revert my changes, if you'd mention it on my talk page please so I can deal with it while it's fresh in my mind. - Rod57 ( talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I hope that you had a nice Christmas and that you have a Happy New Year. :-)-- MrADHD | T@1k? 14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes I thought when I was writing the references for the heart disease pages, that I should have referenced the actual studies they reference with their proof directly, rather than the secondary source talking about the studies.
Would it be worth going back and creating direct links to the studies related to the cause of heart disease, that this article referenced, at some later time? (Are fairly cut and dry studies acceptable references?)
Just hit me on a whim, to try and correct some of our long held seeming misperceptions about the topic having discovered this research (such as that heart disease is caused by excessive LDL, when its more accurately caused by high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome etc and a lack of certain anti-oxidants ie oxLDL, or so it now appears). The risk factors still apply, but they are no longer viable as the actual cause (apart from perhaps high blood pressure, which is part of the cause)
Admitedly more research needs to be done now that we have a new angle to look at this phenomena from, to give it more weight (especially with long held perceptions)
(The nicotine thing is something I became aware of recently, that nicotine on its own, say via an e-cig, is not anywhere near as addictive as smoking - its the mao inhibition that makes smoking tobacco work like it does - another misperception, and thankfully someone had already referenced that one with a study)
I appreciate you dropping me a note :)
Thanks, Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.215.200 ( talk) 23:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!-- Pharos ( talk) 02:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Given my apology to Drmies and the conversation you chose to post at the end of, what productive perspective do you feel you're adding? Ironholds ( talk) 06:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Just saw this, Doc ... I was encouraged that at least Ironholds issued what looked like a genuine apology, while the other admin in the other block did not, and likely will not. So at this juncture, I'm inclined towards feeling better about Ironholds than the other, but yes ... efforts to help clarify blocking policy so that trigger-happy admins don't go around making unhelpful blocks would be a good thing. I don't have the time or inclination to take on that issue while the disruption at FAC continues ... I'd like to be able to just get back to reviewing articles at FAC and FAR, since the standards have dropped, and work on medical articles without Education Program interference. I appreciate your efforts to help clarify blocking policy, and I'm sorry I don't have the energy to join in that effort right now. I hope Drmies and all of the unfairly blocked will be able to put it behind them and welcome in a New Year. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, not sure what to think of [1] - you probably know a lot more than me. Richiez ( talk) 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
That was my initial thought as well, but in thinking more about this I changed my mind. Since old versions of Wikipedia pages are not normally indexed by search engines, it would make it much more difficult to find someone if the pages were expunged. Boghog ( talk) 08:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I've reported this at WP:ANI. [7] Halo Jerk1 ( talk) 21:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
As someone who has been blocked in the not to distant past I wanted to tell you that I do not know how to respond to your proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Alteration_to_the_block_policy
Here is a reference to how I was blocked: User_talk:Ottawahitech#Username_sounds_like_an_organization
In your opinion was I notified in advance of the block or not? - (I was in shock when it happened, so maybe I am naive?) Ottawahitech ( talk) 03:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't you have confined your proposal to established or long term content editors? It is not going to succeed in its current form. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 03:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Best wishes for the New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at
FAC,
FAR and
TFA requests.
Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the
FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! |
Regarding your image upload of psoriasis, do you recall what part of the body the image recorded? (i'm guessing it's the knee..), Thank-You-- Anuhek ( talk) 23:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings - You left a message on my talk page, and I'm hoping you can enlighten me. It's a large reference, and I can feel that you're concerned about something in particular. Can you enlighten me? Perhaps I can help or fix something. Santamoly ( talk) 08:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you have access to the full article "Efficacy of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines"? I just read the entire article and could not find a single justification for the 70% figure. Perhaps there is a justification somewhere, I could not find it on Google Scholar. They should not have been allowed to state such a figure in the abstract without repeating it in the introduction and giving a proper reference to studies which justify it. It is a bad reference, and is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.227.218 ( talk) 14:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
If you don't have access to the article, I can email to you. Please indicate how they arrived at the 70% figure. If you can't based on that article, it's a bad reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.227.218 ( talk) 14:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I am writing a manuscript and would like to reference the 70% number. Referencing "Efficacy of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines" will not be accepted by the journal editors where I am submitting. I thought that the authors of this paper would reference the study that showed that 70% was the right number. They don't. I'm not disputing the number, by the way, I'm simply saying that we need a link to the original study (which is probably much more nuanced than just ~70%). 132.216.227.218 ( talk) 14:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) BTW, the journal in which this article is published is not a high quality journal (impact Factor: 1.646, barely high than Medical Hypotheses). 132.216.227.218 ( talk) 14:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this. 132.216.227.218 ( talk) 14:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Martlau ( talk) 22:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS secondary sources from the last 5 years are needed. Cheers Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The Medicine Barnstar | ||
Presenting you this barnstar for your tireless contributions to Medicine-related articles. Eukesh ( talk) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC) |
Debilitating fatigue can have a duration of two to three months, particularly in adults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJFBrooks ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doc James. I recently left a new message regarding the formatting of regional variation in standards of care articles, that can be found at WT:MED. Thanks for your feedback. Best. GT67 ( talk) 23:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course the organizations who provide content provide well referenced content.
And of course, in Germany The Big Lie was also well referenced, but where are we when life expectancy in America, without any exposure to tobacco, is 78.9 years and the 22.1% risk of lung cancer among male smokers' is referenced' to the age of 85? And that the comparative to non-smoking European males does not indicate whether they are still alive, only that they did not die from lung cancer. Why are we crossing the pond for the comparative? Because American Life Expectancy is only 78.9 years?
The well referenced data, does it take into account the disproportionate percentage among smokers of high stressed individuals?
There is a hell of a lot of money to be had for contradicting The People now, ain't there?
Slearwig ( talk) 03:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you aren't the right editor because this is an issue with Academia as it relates to medicine (and a different form of medicine than you are probably experienced with), but you were the most qualified person I could think of. Can you take a look at User talk:Ryan Vesey#Darold Treffert and offer some advice if you have any? Thanks, Ryan Vesey 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not certain to what extent you're proficient in endocrinology, but would you mind stopping by this discussion? I'm substantially convinced that we should not be depicting such a poorly understood physiological process in black and white terms, especially not in this context and in spite of contradictory data. — C M B J 08:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Siilinsilmä ( talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)You contacted me months ago anout my "contribution" to Wikipedia article on Tularemia. I am sorry I did not answer earlier, but I have been too busy to even notice it. I am not too familiar with all the tricks of Wikipedia as simple as they may be, and for some reason I made a real mess on this one. It was either leaving my lines without notes or erasing the all the notes from the whole text.
My original notes were from national statistics of Sweden and Finland. Tularemia is rather well known in mid to northern Finland, alhough we call it Jänisrutto (Hare-plague), obviously, it kills a lot of hares. I have known its existense as long as I remember and my sister got it just days before I wrote my entry.
Yours, Siilinsilmä i.e. Anne Aurasmaa Ph.D.
Siilinsilmä ( talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
since cs has been cleared by fda for external use, its no longer belongs to alternative medicine. Though the internal use by mouth continues to belongs to alternative medicine. Yet, all other forms of silver are used by doctors, like for example for burns. So, could you please add a suitable category? Ryanspir ( talk) 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Where would you recommend I place research done on blood oxygenation without respiration? An an emphysema patient, it seems to apply to progress toward a cure (or workaround in this case). I can't imagine where else on Wikipedia I would look this up, if I were searching for info on progress made by the research community. 174.239.32.140 ( talk) 14:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Where can I look up information on what a "proper secondary source" is? 71.205.175.33 ( talk) 15:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi James,
Pleasure to meet you today! Thanks for making it out to UCSF!
Are these talk pages conversations public?
HeatherLogghe ( talk) 00:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, James! I’m very glad to have met a Wikipedian who leaves in an English-speaking country and is a physician by profession. Many thanks for your helpful reference. And Theodore Roosevelt’s words you find inspiring are very good, in my estimation. -- SU ltd. ( talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doc, I am wondering if you can give me your thoughts - in the U.K an extremely high profile case involving a major celebrity figure who turned out to be a psychopathic narcissistic prolific sexual abuser has just been reported on by the government. You may be wondering what the problem is. The problem is this multimillion pound enquiry and final report contains large quantities of plagiarised text from wikipedia!!! Or at least that is what one person is raising on the this talk page, Talk:Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal#Confirmation. I am wondering whether you could have a look and see if this is indeed the case as I am not good when it comes to interpretations of legal policies of wikipedia and I know that you have knowledge in this area.-- MrADHD | T@1k? 16:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, DocJames. In the wake of Wikipedian Aaron Swartz's suicide on Friday -- featured in remembering Aaron Swartz -- I've been wondering what we can do to help prevent similar tragedies in the future, in our community and in the world at large.
Noting that Google, Yahoo, and Ask have special links to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline when they get queries for "suicide", I thought it would make sense to add a simple but prominent link to suicide.
There are archives of conversations on the subject on Talk:Suicide, and specifically I've seen you say that "we don't link to hotlines". I wasn't able to find a clear summary of why that is, though. It feels like suicide might be a special case, and since we have list of suicide crisis lines it could even be a wiki link. -- ESP ( talk) 19:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)