![]() | This 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. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Hi, James. Are you planning to take " Asthma" to FAC? If so, perhaps you could open a peer review and I shall formally review the article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Have you read this NY Times article and this Wikipedia articles?
Thanks for contacting me on this. Although I handle quite a bit of translation, medicine is not my field. Sorry. Good luck with your project. -- Ipigott ( talk) 22:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you respond to the message I left above at #Commons:Commons:Batch uploading/ECGPedia. If it's all good, I'll do the upload. Smallman12q ( talk) 01:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me know if its fine, and I'll upload the rest. Smallman12q ( talk) 14:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi - what part of article do you need reference?
Best regards
Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.47.221 ( talk) 00:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I think a study about HIV transmission risk has been partially misquoted in a Wikipedia article, as summarized by me on Talk:HIV/AIDS#Commercial_sex_transmission_risk:_study_misquoted. I think you might want to add your opinion.
Best regards, RPgzLp ( talk) 23:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a dose response relationship between increasing elevation and decreasing obesity prevalence in the United States. [1]
due to the fact "genital warts" is uneditable, I edited "cervical cancer" to make a very important point and raise some awareness to people who would do some research on cervical cancer online.
you deleted my edit, why?
Thank you for deleting my post and now people don't know that even if you have all the physical protection in sexual acts, you would still catch genital warts and herpes.
Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 21:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sometime in your edits of January 28th to cataract, your last sentence in 'Medications' became disconnected. Do you think you could have a look at it sometime? I would edit it but I'm not completely sure of your intention. Regards. -- Mdscottis ( talk) 16:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I am setting up a wiki based documentation for my metatextbook of medicine and my medline&more ultrasearchengine. I am in lag of tagging about 10k items and all 2012+ items.
Thematical linkouts would be appreciated - to my preformatted review collections and/or my pre-formatted pubmed search term expressions as exemplified in that documentation at 04 feb 2013. And as a source of selected papers, of course, too :))))
Yours sincerely - Ossip Groth
Indeed, there is a major problem in medicine which I can understand as a german and which is of utmost importance to my collegues from romania, bulgaria and so on - they dont understand english, so they are not able to formulate pubmed search terms. I recently wanted a paper from a chinese server - i couldnt even registrate to use it.
-- Ossip Groth ( talk) 12:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I Jmh649, i got a question on your way of moving content. First of all, here's few exemple of what i'm talking about (by edits id: -403331487 -403332145 -403332304 For those cases, it's in the comment that those actions consist in moving content to subpage. But after some research, i'm totally unable to see where it can have been put. I understand those are hold post (but i've seen this append else where too). So i was wandering if it is a simple bad habit naming your comment, or if those are simply misleading of what is truly appening (like a simple deletion of content). So please, explain yourself (or just be more specific in your comment). I making quite some researchs on that kind of edits, so a little explanation of your proceeding will be welcome. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCMoineau ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I was merely arguing that it is intrinsic to double blind studies that when the experimental and placebo group show similar degrees of benefit that the benefit in the experimental group can be attributed to the placebo effect. This concept is so basic to double blind studies that I do not believe that a reference is required. Part of the very reason for the existence of blinded studies explain the nature of the results of unblinded studies. CrunchyChewy ( talk) 19:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand why you have removed all my edits to the "cancer biomarkers", the "ovarian cancer" and the "gene expression profiling" pages. We have developed a freely available online software which was already used in top journals like Nature, Cancer Cell, PNAS, etc. We have 1500 users per day. Since it is designed to validate cancer biomarkers, I believe this is a useful info for wikipedia visitors as well. Zsalab2 ( talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for referring me to WP:IMAGE. I enlarged the image of the eye and put some text in bold on 'Cataract' to assist users with poor vision. I see that size up to 400 are considered reasonable in some circumstances. Would this not be an example of where this is appropriate ? Aspheric ( talk) 04:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jmh, do you by chance have access to this article? I asked OhanaUnited but I haven't heard back (granted, it hasn't been long but the sooner the better). Drug-induced gynecomastia: an evidence-based review. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22862307 Expert Opinion on Drug Safety 11(5) 779-795 doi: 10.1517/14740338.2012.712109
Hi James,
I made an entry for " flail mandible." (It had not existed previously.) It was brief--one sentence each for definition, cause, and treatment and included one journal article as a reference. It looks like it was taken down already. Is there a good way for me to learn what wasn't up to par about it? Also, is there any kind of mentoring system when learning the ropes of Wiki? I want to contribute, but do not have oodles of time to figure out "how" to do everything....
Thanks.
HeatherLogghe ( talk) 04:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I got your message and agree wholeheartedly. I will gladly remove the reference to the web site news article. I only ask that the reference to the Journal of Invertebrate Pathology be allowed to stand. What is the basis of your continued objection to this? KDS444 ( talk) 11:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello James,
I know you know, but I sent you the template anyway. Everyone on the WMCA participant list receives this :
During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.
Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.
If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.Benoit Rochon ( talk) 23:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jmh, I'm confused about what happened with the bronchitis article. Aren't we supposed to follow this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:MED#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That's a rather heavy handed approach James. Please discuss this with me at the chiropractic talk forum. Discuss the language you would like to see used. Disagreements in viewpoint amongst research is common but accusations of misrepresentation of sources is not assuming good faith, IMO. Anyways, I look forward to discuss it further with you in the appropriate forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVMt ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed that sentence because, as best as I could tell over the paywall, it was not supported by the reference. I say no reference to a 90% rate in the entire population (just those 70+), and even if it were, the wording suggests a much higher incidence than there actually is.
Peer review article have a higher impact factor and higher level of evidence than review articles( level IV) . But Im sure you know this and your response was an error . I was wondering why are the Level 1 and level 2 reference article I keep on leaving for this page gets deleted and reverted back to none peer reviewed commercial website and statements with no reference .
thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.224.82 ( talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Medicine Barnstar | |
Thank you for helping asthma get back up to a respectable state. It's the first big article to make it this year! It's is also in the top 0.1% of all Wikipedia articles by page views. Thanks! Biosthmors ( talk) 18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
What is your opinion on http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120202094700.htm and the referenced article ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C2DT12399A)? Is it a respectable source? Ryanspir ( talk) 13:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
While I do not think cs is "silver complexes bearing bidentate N-heterocyclic carbene ligands" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)The Simple English page is not listed among the languages on the left side of the screen in the Croup article. I have no clue why you wouldn't want people to find the simple version of the article - so I don't understand why you'd remove the link I placed in the article. I'll continue to put the link back in unless you can provide a better explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSteeleInCalifornia ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jmh, when does the top 500 medical articles usually turn over? It's still reading the December statistics but it's the middle of February now. Just wondering. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 21:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
22:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Community-Driven_Video_Production_Portal Let me know what you think! Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was just wondering what you meant by "old primary references". They were legitimate so it seemed to me? Was there something wrong maybe how they were listed? Also I noticed you used Twinkle which from what I understand detects vandalism. I was not trying to vandalize the article but rather add a more expansive detailing to it. Just to clarify.
With regards, Ariadavid ( talk) 03:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure so 6248 out of 74678 people came to this article via the term colloidal silver in Jan 2013 per [7] Have you tried to add content about the size of the retail market and had it rejected? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Hi DocJames. I've seen your signature around here and there, but never knew what your position was on COI.
I was curious if you support COI work like this. RTI International is a good example to use, since they have published a lot of notable research on cancer and AIDs, so I thought you might be familiar with them. Their previous article looked like this. I think they are an honorable organization, not an evil corporation, and a lot of their research is in itself a reliable source. But they did need help being neutral, understanding Wikipedia's rules and explaining why we would want to include the gun-shooting in Iraq, though it's not something they would prefer.
I'm interested in the debate in general. Do you think my helping them in this capacity was a bad thing for Wikipedia? In this case I was assisted very promptly and so my poking for your opinion is not connected to the timeliness issue discussed on Jimbo's Talk page. Just looking for ways to improve and gain fresh perspective. I don't think the article is perfect and the GA review may offer further criticisms, but hopefully my contributions are at least up to the standards we would set for most editors.
Cheers. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Stuff like this is always around to give me perspective. I wonder if editors sometimes see my requests in the same light. If there's one thing Wikipedia offers in large doses, it's always filled with fresh perspective. CorporateM ( Talk) 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Good Afternoon, Dr. Heilman. I'm wondering if you would be kind enough to assist me. I am taking part in an active discussion at commons:Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Straddle injury.jpg, and I have managed to succeed in questioning my own judgment on the image at hand, that being of a 5 year old female with a vertical straddle injury to the vulva, bruising to the left and right labia, and what looks like old bruising through to the buttocks.
My initial suspicion was the result of sexual abuse, but I am now at the wrong end of questioning myself as to origin - would you be kind enough to take a look at the injury (the uploader has provided an external link to the image in question) and provide your own opinion on the matter, please. Thank you for your time, regards, Fish Barking? 17:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Hi, James. Are you planning to take " Asthma" to FAC? If so, perhaps you could open a peer review and I shall formally review the article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Have you read this NY Times article and this Wikipedia articles?
Thanks for contacting me on this. Although I handle quite a bit of translation, medicine is not my field. Sorry. Good luck with your project. -- Ipigott ( talk) 22:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you respond to the message I left above at #Commons:Commons:Batch uploading/ECGPedia. If it's all good, I'll do the upload. Smallman12q ( talk) 01:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me know if its fine, and I'll upload the rest. Smallman12q ( talk) 14:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi - what part of article do you need reference?
Best regards
Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.47.221 ( talk) 00:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I think a study about HIV transmission risk has been partially misquoted in a Wikipedia article, as summarized by me on Talk:HIV/AIDS#Commercial_sex_transmission_risk:_study_misquoted. I think you might want to add your opinion.
Best regards, RPgzLp ( talk) 23:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a dose response relationship between increasing elevation and decreasing obesity prevalence in the United States. [1]
due to the fact "genital warts" is uneditable, I edited "cervical cancer" to make a very important point and raise some awareness to people who would do some research on cervical cancer online.
you deleted my edit, why?
Thank you for deleting my post and now people don't know that even if you have all the physical protection in sexual acts, you would still catch genital warts and herpes.
Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 21:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sometime in your edits of January 28th to cataract, your last sentence in 'Medications' became disconnected. Do you think you could have a look at it sometime? I would edit it but I'm not completely sure of your intention. Regards. -- Mdscottis ( talk) 16:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I am setting up a wiki based documentation for my metatextbook of medicine and my medline&more ultrasearchengine. I am in lag of tagging about 10k items and all 2012+ items.
Thematical linkouts would be appreciated - to my preformatted review collections and/or my pre-formatted pubmed search term expressions as exemplified in that documentation at 04 feb 2013. And as a source of selected papers, of course, too :))))
Yours sincerely - Ossip Groth
Indeed, there is a major problem in medicine which I can understand as a german and which is of utmost importance to my collegues from romania, bulgaria and so on - they dont understand english, so they are not able to formulate pubmed search terms. I recently wanted a paper from a chinese server - i couldnt even registrate to use it.
-- Ossip Groth ( talk) 12:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I Jmh649, i got a question on your way of moving content. First of all, here's few exemple of what i'm talking about (by edits id: -403331487 -403332145 -403332304 For those cases, it's in the comment that those actions consist in moving content to subpage. But after some research, i'm totally unable to see where it can have been put. I understand those are hold post (but i've seen this append else where too). So i was wandering if it is a simple bad habit naming your comment, or if those are simply misleading of what is truly appening (like a simple deletion of content). So please, explain yourself (or just be more specific in your comment). I making quite some researchs on that kind of edits, so a little explanation of your proceeding will be welcome. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCMoineau ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I was merely arguing that it is intrinsic to double blind studies that when the experimental and placebo group show similar degrees of benefit that the benefit in the experimental group can be attributed to the placebo effect. This concept is so basic to double blind studies that I do not believe that a reference is required. Part of the very reason for the existence of blinded studies explain the nature of the results of unblinded studies. CrunchyChewy ( talk) 19:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand why you have removed all my edits to the "cancer biomarkers", the "ovarian cancer" and the "gene expression profiling" pages. We have developed a freely available online software which was already used in top journals like Nature, Cancer Cell, PNAS, etc. We have 1500 users per day. Since it is designed to validate cancer biomarkers, I believe this is a useful info for wikipedia visitors as well. Zsalab2 ( talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for referring me to WP:IMAGE. I enlarged the image of the eye and put some text in bold on 'Cataract' to assist users with poor vision. I see that size up to 400 are considered reasonable in some circumstances. Would this not be an example of where this is appropriate ? Aspheric ( talk) 04:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jmh, do you by chance have access to this article? I asked OhanaUnited but I haven't heard back (granted, it hasn't been long but the sooner the better). Drug-induced gynecomastia: an evidence-based review. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22862307 Expert Opinion on Drug Safety 11(5) 779-795 doi: 10.1517/14740338.2012.712109
Hi James,
I made an entry for " flail mandible." (It had not existed previously.) It was brief--one sentence each for definition, cause, and treatment and included one journal article as a reference. It looks like it was taken down already. Is there a good way for me to learn what wasn't up to par about it? Also, is there any kind of mentoring system when learning the ropes of Wiki? I want to contribute, but do not have oodles of time to figure out "how" to do everything....
Thanks.
HeatherLogghe ( talk) 04:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I got your message and agree wholeheartedly. I will gladly remove the reference to the web site news article. I only ask that the reference to the Journal of Invertebrate Pathology be allowed to stand. What is the basis of your continued objection to this? KDS444 ( talk) 11:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello James,
I know you know, but I sent you the template anyway. Everyone on the WMCA participant list receives this :
During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.
Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.
If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.Benoit Rochon ( talk) 23:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jmh, I'm confused about what happened with the bronchitis article. Aren't we supposed to follow this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:MED#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That's a rather heavy handed approach James. Please discuss this with me at the chiropractic talk forum. Discuss the language you would like to see used. Disagreements in viewpoint amongst research is common but accusations of misrepresentation of sources is not assuming good faith, IMO. Anyways, I look forward to discuss it further with you in the appropriate forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVMt ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed that sentence because, as best as I could tell over the paywall, it was not supported by the reference. I say no reference to a 90% rate in the entire population (just those 70+), and even if it were, the wording suggests a much higher incidence than there actually is.
Peer review article have a higher impact factor and higher level of evidence than review articles( level IV) . But Im sure you know this and your response was an error . I was wondering why are the Level 1 and level 2 reference article I keep on leaving for this page gets deleted and reverted back to none peer reviewed commercial website and statements with no reference .
thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.224.82 ( talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Medicine Barnstar | |
Thank you for helping asthma get back up to a respectable state. It's the first big article to make it this year! It's is also in the top 0.1% of all Wikipedia articles by page views. Thanks! Biosthmors ( talk) 18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
What is your opinion on http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120202094700.htm and the referenced article ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C2DT12399A)? Is it a respectable source? Ryanspir ( talk) 13:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
While I do not think cs is "silver complexes bearing bidentate N-heterocyclic carbene ligands" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)The Simple English page is not listed among the languages on the left side of the screen in the Croup article. I have no clue why you wouldn't want people to find the simple version of the article - so I don't understand why you'd remove the link I placed in the article. I'll continue to put the link back in unless you can provide a better explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSteeleInCalifornia ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jmh, when does the top 500 medical articles usually turn over? It's still reading the December statistics but it's the middle of February now. Just wondering. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 21:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
22:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Community-Driven_Video_Production_Portal Let me know what you think! Victor Grigas ( talk) 01:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was just wondering what you meant by "old primary references". They were legitimate so it seemed to me? Was there something wrong maybe how they were listed? Also I noticed you used Twinkle which from what I understand detects vandalism. I was not trying to vandalize the article but rather add a more expansive detailing to it. Just to clarify.
With regards, Ariadavid ( talk) 03:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure so 6248 out of 74678 people came to this article via the term colloidal silver in Jan 2013 per [7] Have you tried to add content about the size of the retail market and had it rejected? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Hi DocJames. I've seen your signature around here and there, but never knew what your position was on COI.
I was curious if you support COI work like this. RTI International is a good example to use, since they have published a lot of notable research on cancer and AIDs, so I thought you might be familiar with them. Their previous article looked like this. I think they are an honorable organization, not an evil corporation, and a lot of their research is in itself a reliable source. But they did need help being neutral, understanding Wikipedia's rules and explaining why we would want to include the gun-shooting in Iraq, though it's not something they would prefer.
I'm interested in the debate in general. Do you think my helping them in this capacity was a bad thing for Wikipedia? In this case I was assisted very promptly and so my poking for your opinion is not connected to the timeliness issue discussed on Jimbo's Talk page. Just looking for ways to improve and gain fresh perspective. I don't think the article is perfect and the GA review may offer further criticisms, but hopefully my contributions are at least up to the standards we would set for most editors.
Cheers. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Stuff like this is always around to give me perspective. I wonder if editors sometimes see my requests in the same light. If there's one thing Wikipedia offers in large doses, it's always filled with fresh perspective. CorporateM ( Talk) 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Good Afternoon, Dr. Heilman. I'm wondering if you would be kind enough to assist me. I am taking part in an active discussion at commons:Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Straddle injury.jpg, and I have managed to succeed in questioning my own judgment on the image at hand, that being of a 5 year old female with a vertical straddle injury to the vulva, bruising to the left and right labia, and what looks like old bruising through to the buttocks.
My initial suspicion was the result of sexual abuse, but I am now at the wrong end of questioning myself as to origin - would you be kind enough to take a look at the injury (the uploader has provided an external link to the image in question) and provide your own opinion on the matter, please. Thank you for your time, regards, Fish Barking? 17:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)