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. |
Season's Greetings | ||
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Cariani) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC) |
from dusty hot plains of oz - have a great christmas and the rest JarrahTree 23:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
| |
Austral season's greetings | |
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
I hope you like almond paste (if you don't, all the more for me). Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Narky Blert (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Doc James: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 07:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
10 minutes to Christmas for us both, so thought I'd send this now. Wishing you all the best, TheSandDoctor Talk 07:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hello Doc James, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages. |
Thanks User:Bzuk. Likewise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi James. I hope you're well and having a good festive season. Could I trouble you to take a look at Asian Americans#Health and medicine at some point? In particular, I'm concerned about the statement that "For instance, in the early 1970s the US medical establishment did not believe in the usefulness of acupuncture. Since then studies have proven the efficacy of acupuncture for different applications, especially for treatment of chronic pain". Is that an accurate statement of the evidence? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Unless Google, Wikipedia, and, above all, the Dutch policemen who yelled at me were all wrong, it is not legal, just tolerated as a "soft drug". It's a common myth, but not true unless some dramatic change of the law occurred in the last 3 years. (mleonard85032) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_Netherlands
(Mleonard85032) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess I got confused what you were saying, just forget the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mleonard85032 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm genuinely confused as to why the Dell Loy Hansen article was deleted? I'm the user who contributed the bulk of content to that article and I have no personal relationship with Hansen whatsoever. It seemed the original document was biased in his favor and thus the flag for bias. However I tried to clean up the article by removing the more biased sentences and providing credible third party sources that discussed the subjects accomplishments and notability. Where did I go wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.77.187.137 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Did you mean to mark that last edit you reverted as being vandalism? Dolive21 (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Doc James,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.
Thank you for cleaning up my less-than-stellar edit of Alcohol (medicine). I wonder if you could take a look at the discussion at Talk:Alcohol (medicine) § This article is a POVFORK and should be deleted. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best , James,
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Can you explain? The statement that "bendamustine is made from nitrogen mustard" is not correct and is not a statement with the same meaning as "bendamustine is a nitrogen mustard derivative". The first statement means that if you take nitrogen mustard you can make bendamustine. If you look at the original procedure (currently Ref 9) you will see that that is not how the compound was made. On the other hand the second statement means that "bendamustine is a variant of the nitrogen mustard structure". this is quite true. On this basis I will undo your correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SellaTheChemist (talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Doc James,
How did you get the well-formatted book citation from the PMID for the Drugs and Lactation Database? I tried a half-dozen different methods and get errors or empty results for all the ones I tried. I've run in to this for several sources that have PMIDs but that are not journal articles, and don't seem to give useful results from (for example) https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi (or other tools).
Thanks,
Sbelknap (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Just wondering why you reverted my edit. “Anorexia” simply means loss of appetite. It is a symptom, not a disease, and can occur in many situations. It is therefore incorrect to call “anorexia nervosa” (which is a specific disease) “anorexia” PointOfPresence (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Doc James should the outbreak be moved to epidemic? ( CDC now calling an “epidemic” that so far has produced 613 cases and claimed 371 lives in the DRC[3]....and DRC Ministry of Health more recent numbers[4])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Doc, I'll admit that I didn't look far enough down the article before adding the maps to the Geography section, and that you've now updated the graph. However isn't the DALY map much more appropriate in the Geography section? The Prognosis section doesn't talk about distribution at all whereas it's the main emphasis of the Geography section. Chris55 (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey
I remember a year or two ago seeing some instruction (I think maybe you wrote?) for a Raspberry Pi Zero running Kiwix with a battery power backup. I looked on the Kiwix site and Googled it and can't find it, do you have a link? I want to show it at an education conference where I'm trying to get a table.
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
In the lede of the doxycylcine article, the term "parasites" is overly general. Apicomplexa is precise. In the tradeoff between "common" and "precise", the term parasite seems a bridge too far.Sbelknap (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
(it's this contribution to the Breastfeeding page. "Dozens of mobile apps exist for tracking the habits of breastfeeding mothers. One such app is "Breastfeeding - Baby Tracker."[1] These can be effective tools for visualizing and reminding a nursing mother which breast she nursed on most recently, which can help avoid problems with engorgement later. ")
...but I put it on Wikipedia for these reasons.
1. I have spent over 10k hours of my life breastfeeding five children. 2. Having a tracking app is useful because it can help avoid problems with engorgement later. Which is exactly what I wrote. 3. I figured this information out on my own through trial and error. It was not fun. 4. I am in no way affiliated with the app. 5. The app is free and has no ads. 6. It is the ONLY app available that also has a useful widget which also is located in my android device's menu tray. 7. I once wasted two hours of my life trying to re-find this app. Between baby #4 and baby #5 it was renamed. 8. I only cited a specific breastfeeding app (there are literally 50+) because I thought that that was what one was supposed to do: cite-cite-cite. 9. If it's so "spammy", why not delete the reference to this particular app but leave the general information about the app existing because it is relevant, valid, true, and totally neutral. 10. Wikipedia has a serious lack of female contributors. I am a woman, a new contributor, and also postpartum. I am still learning the culture and style of contributing. Why such terse criticism? Kchallis (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Doc James! You've reverted my edit, stating "Removed small primary source, already at folinic acid deficiency". Where is "Folinic acid deficiency"? I haven't found neither such article nor such section in an article. I believe a mention of folinic acid treatment of cerebral folate deficiency is quite justified. After your revert, there's no mention of folinic acid deficiency at all in the article. ---CopperKettle 14:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Separate issue: It appears that Bjorklund has since 2011 used two User accounts and more than 20 IPs to write this article about himself. The article is flawed, as is his science, but I don't have the energy to work on an article that gets <10 visits a day. David notMD (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
And FYI - I am retired from my consulting business. David notMD (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Vertigo and tinnitus are common words. It insults the reader's intelligence to give a childlike definition. 37.152.231.125 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you pleased with yourself? 37.152.231.125 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
On User talk:Wizenthorne, after my decline of his unblock request with some advice, has finally formulated a reasonable and thoughtful appeal that explains his actions, motivations, and path forward. He seems sincere in his desire to be a positive contributor here (we need more of those). What's your impression? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to see what would be the best thing to do here. At the end of last year, I made some edits for a wiki article of a research institution I work at, which means I have a COI issue. Soon after, you contacted me and let me know of the COI issue and told me that I need more outside sources. Not too long after you said that, another editor swooped in and deleted most parts of the wiki article without any warnings. That editor is indefinitely blocked by Wikipedia to edit any further now, so I don't know if I can contact the person to address his/her concerns directly. Unfortunately, the comments are really unhelpful by themselves so I can't address them fully on my own; for instance, his/her comments said things like "PR crap" or "bunch of low quality pics."
I've been using the article's Talk page to basically make my edits again with more credible sources, and the editors I've been working with have been very unhelpful. Their comments are really general and vague, and they keep saying the same things about citing secondary/tertiary sources, which I have done in my latest draft. I'm beginning to think if I'm not allowed to edit wiki pages at all because of my status? I would think people who are experts or are associated with the institution would be very knowledgeable about it, although of course they need to work with the editors to stay neutral and unbiased. Thank you! Irenepark89 (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I did not try to privately contact the editor. I went on the editor's talk page and found out that he/she recently got blocked by Wikipedia and learned that the editor has gotten in trouble for similar offenses before and has VERY strong stance regarding COI. He/she believes that anyone with COI should not be allowed to edit, basically. It's frustrating that these big edits were made without ANY warning, and the comments in general have been EXTREMELY unclear, which is why I almost feel like the Wikipedia staff does not want someone with COI to contribute. If there are issues with my edits, I expect the editor to provide specific comments rather than a general, sweeping comment like "PR crap" or that the claims are not from reliable sources. In my latest draft, I cited news articles from reliable outlets like Forbes, SF Gate, and MIT Tech Review. The citations were mostly used to cite neutral facts, like when the institution was established, who provided the seed money for the new building, etc., rather than an opinion. Not sure what else the editors want? It's hard to work with someone when the expectations are so unclear. Irenepark89 (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe it's important for the public and professionals to know of the infectious potential of certain COPD pathogens from this reputable journal research in the introduction on COPD page for good faith reasons. Genschmer, Kristopher R.; Russell, Derek W.; Lal, Charitharth; Szul, Tomasz; Bratcher, Preston E.; Noerager, Brett D.; Abdul Roda, Mojtaba; Xu, Xin; Rezonzew, Gabriel; Viera, Liliana; Dobosh, Brian S.; Margaroli, Camilla; Abdalla, Tarek H.; King, Robert W.; McNicholas, Carmel M.; Wells, J. Michael; Dransfield, Mark T.; Tirouvanziam, Rabindra; Gaggar, Amit; Blalock, J. Edwin (January 2019). "Activated PMN Exosomes: Pathogenic Entities Causing Matrix Destruction and Disease in the Lung". Cell. 176 (1–2): 113–126.e15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.12.002. ((cite journal))
: Check |doi=
value (help); External link in
(help) You deleted my edit in the introduction paragraph for COPD. Do you have a suggestion on how this research must be communicated to the public without having to scroll and read through many lines and paragraphs of text?
|doi=
Regarding all of this that I reverted, any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Copperkettle and I have been discussing zinc and depression, which led me to the Zinc deficiency article. I was dismayed about how many of the references are primary - mostly clinical trials - and am considering deleting refs as not MEDRS, but for many of the named conditions/diseases that will leave no references. I would look for secondary sources as replacements, but some of the conditions/diseases may have no citations. From history, I saw you have been active at this article in the past. Any advice? David notMD (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Curlie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curlie until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Zanhe (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)