User talk:Doc James/Archive 161

Archive 155

←

Archive 159

Archive 160

Archive 161

Archive 162

Archive 163

→

Archive 165

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "An update on and a request for involvement at the Medicine MOS". Thank you. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49 you looking for anything specific? Discussions of bringing this to arbcom have been going on for 6 or so years. Are you requesting people send behavioral issues? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I know your conversation with Sandy proceeds below but I'm not looking for people to send behavioral issues. Really I'm looking for some fresh eyes and a few volunteers. However, it also seemed incomplete not to give space to behavioral issues if people want to discuss them. If people don't that's fine too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish was repeatedly mentioning filing an arbcase, but he "retired" after a string of failure to AGF posts and I twice requested that he stop stirring the pot. You might want to read my several recent posts to his talk page, encouraging him to stop stirring that pot. I am not aware of anyone who believes an arbcase is the way to go at this point. Barkeep49 is updating AN on the need for an admin to review the RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware User:Tryptofish had mentioned an arbcom case. I was referring to comments made by others regarding such a case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

After he mentioned it several times, I repeatedly asked him to stand down; others (like me) would rather work to address our differences. You can review the state of his talk page before he retired, after Barkeep49 (bravely) recommended the AGF issues for enforcement of the discretionary sanctions.

James, I would really like to have a new start. Part of that is that you should understand that you cannot use a guideline (WP:MEDMOS) to editwar at a Featured article to install your personal preference; I believe that Casliber deserves the courtesy of a discussion at least on the talk page before you edit war. Self-reverting would be a very good sign that you agree that collegiality is more important at this point than where one piece of information sits on one page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

We have failed to come to any compromise or find common ground regarding the significant difference of opinions we have on a bunch of aspects of Wikipedia unfortunately... Not sure how you suggest moving forwards from this? Most of the discussions appear to simple be going in circles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe that ways forward can be found. I also believe that returning from three 90-hour workweeks and immediately re-engaging the same behaviors discussed on the ANI (edit warring to install a personal preference at Schizophrenia, and using a guideline that provides a suggested order as a justification) is not likely to be the best way forward. James, I strongly believe that other medical editors would like to see us return to what we once were. Could you please try to read and take on board all of the commentary everywhere about your behaviors? Could you explain to me why Cas's placement of the diagnosis section is so significant to you that you would edit war over it? Could you help me understand why this matters ? We are awaiting your feedback on article talk: polling is not a substitute for discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe we can let other editors speak for themselves. A bunch of us put in a fair bit of effort to put in place a small degree of consistency between health condition related articles over the last number of years as we felt that this is useful to our readers to help them rapidly find what they are looking for. It also helps our editors rapidly determined were new evidence should be placed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If you believe that a handful of editors can force a set order into every article, even if that disrupts the narrative, then you need to take that up at MEDMOS, and make it part of the guideline. A forced order of the narrative is not part of MEDMOS; it has suggested headings. I regret that you stated at Talk:Schizophrenia that Ozzie10aaaa is also doing this; the frequency with which he shows up to support you with no reasoning, and a "I agree with Doc James" does not look good on either of you. (I did notice that once he "concurred" rather than "agreeing".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

With them being the most prolific medical editor in 2018, I am not concerned by their support. WP:MED has generally worked well together for years. We have made significant progress in a bunch of efforts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Oscillococcinum

FYI, there has been a recent uptick in the amount of inappropriate/non-neutral IP edits occurring on this page. It may warrant protection to allow editing only by non-IP users. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:TylerDurden8823 changed to semi protected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you! This page [1] would also benefit from semi-protection from IPs-there's a fair amount of vandalism/inappropriate edits that have occurred there as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

metacognitive training borderline

Dear Doc James, I wish you a happy new year. I do not understand why my edits on MCT for borderline were deleted, although the evidence is even more robust than for example for mindfulness, which you left untouched (no RCT yet). The training is available at no cost in 8 languages and there are two trials on the methods that seem worth reporting. Why delete this and not others, thanks, yours --Wiki psych21 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Wiki psych21 as requested by a few people, can you go with review articles... Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Doc James, I will do as advised and have, for example, changed my edit at "Habit Reversal Training" accordingly. Hope that is accpetable (would be grateful if you have a look). Yours --Wiki psych21 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Doc James, thanks for your help again. I have also edited "Draft:Decoupling for body-focused repetitive behaviors" - do you think that this site is now publishable? Do you have suggestions. I have also quoted from a second new meta-analysis, yours, --Wiki psych21 (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Wiki psych21 this ref[2] excellent. The other is in Frontiers[3] were there are predatory journal concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Doc James, Thanks again for checking into this. I have mixed feelings about Frontiers and therefore agree that it is perhaps better to delete the citation. I would be grateful if you could upload/publish the draft. Thanks Wiki psych21 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

addition: I moved the page myself and thank you for your generous help. I also agree that my edits on borderline personality should remain deleted, one source is simply not enough for wikipedia, yours Wiki psych21 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

	~ Happy New Year ~
	By the way Belated ~ Hope it is a very fun and safe New Years for you and your students ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mitchellhobbs :-) Likewise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Issue of plagiarism

Please see the following Talk section, where you are mentioned as a resource to understand WP editorial expectations. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Doc, I have asked that this discussion begin here, until you move it to the Talk page at the article. The violating editor is beginning to edit war/revert my correction. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C my understanding is that if the text is public domain than one can copy and paste verbatim from the source in question without using quotes as long as the PD template is used. Often to make it conform to our encyclopedic style it is useful to paraphrase it. Not having quotes makes paraphrasing easier. User:Diannaa is by the far the expert in these matters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Also we are editors (rather than just authors). And us including something does not mean we wrote it / created it, etc. This is especially true for images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Phenoxymethylpenicillin

On my screen the table was left-justified. Right-justification is preferable. Petergans (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay User:Petergans. I see it right justified before and after, but if this fixes it for you, certainly :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I was a lab-boy at in the late 1950's at the Distillers Co. research lab. We where working on improving the yield of Penicillin V being produced in a fermentation process. This work was later made redundant when a way to isolate the penicillin nucleus 6-APA was discovered.

I was recently prescribed some amoxicillin to clear up an infection. On the packet containing the capsules it states "Contains penicillin". It appears that this now acceptable in pharmacy; is that right? In chemistry it is called a beta-lactam antibiotic. Petergans (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

So there is penicillin the drug and penicillin the drug family. So amoxicillin is in the penicillin drug family as is penicillin V, etc. So yes amoxicillin contain a medication in the penicillin family. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Image on hip dysplasia

In February 2010, you generously added one of your own images to the infobox of hip dysplasia. I would like to suggest that I develop a vector illustration of hip dysplasia (potentially compared to a normal hip) to better illustrate this condition for the infobox, as, potentially you'd agree, it may take a while for the average reader to identify where it is in the current image and how exactly that represents hip dysplasia. SUM1 (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SUM1 Sure and the current Xray could be moved lower in the article. Also need to improve the arrow in the picture. Put in a blue or red one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

hello there

hello there Doc, how are you today?, I hope you are always fine, anyway, the reason why I wrote to you is so you could replied back with your sweet message

--the special girl is me (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

PCR

is included in your sysop bits. Check Special:ListGroupRights. ~ ∯WBG^converse 13:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric Yah but the tool was not working for me... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's T233561 / T234743. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:JJMC89 that does indeed appear to be it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision description comprehensibility re: Diphenhydramine page

Thank you for reverting the good faith vandalism ("second-" vs. "first-generation antihistamine") to Diphenhydramine, but the revision description was obtusely confusing. Totoro33 (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC) User:Totoro33 ref says first generation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

We know the correct answer is "first-generation." My comment referred to your obtuse revision description. Descriptions should be understandable; otherwise, we're better without them. Thanks. Totoro33 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Picture

This picture was taken by a medical professional for my file when I was 15. There is a written agreement that this photo would never be shared. I think I can recognize the back of my own head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangled Apollo (talk • contribs) 20:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It does not appear recognizable to me. A lot of the backs of peoples heads look the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

note re idea

Hi Doc James. thanks for your great page. I am writing to you with an idea I think might be helpful overall to Wikipedia. right now, there is nowhere for editors to confidentially report harassment, or to request help confidentially. I'd really like to think there should be some way to set up such a resource here in some way. since you are an ER doc, as well as member of the board of trustees, I thought you wouldn't mind me offering you this suggestion, in order to hopefully discuss it here. by the way, I came here from user:jimbo wales which provided your name as one of the community trustees. I hope you like my idea, and look forward to discussion somewhat, when you have some time. I appreciate it. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sm8900 From what I understand this is being looked at :-) There are currently two places to confidentially report harassment per Wikipedia:Harassment Arbcom and Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

ok, that's good to know. thanks for your reply. let me ask though, how does one report something to ArbCom in confidentiality? I'm fine with whatever method is in effect, I'd simply like to know what is in effect. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Listed here[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

note re idea

hi. I have a new idea for a new Wikipedia policy. in fact I am thinking this should be a sixth pillar. Here it is: "Wikipedia has a zero-tolerance policy for harassment of any individuals." what do you think? the last day or two has really opened my eyes, in terms of the omissions and gaps here on that area. if you're interested, let me know, and I'll send you more details. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

We already have "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility". The difficulty is what counts as harassment? Different people have different definitions. Some do not even consider legal threats to be harassment when such threats they feel are justified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James:, ok. yes, you're right. but that is precisely the challenge before us. only a medical professional like yourself or someone with similar awareness will grasp the neeed and the significance of the task before us. we desperately need some coherent definition of harassment to be clearly enacted, and then to gradually but steadily be promulgated and implemented comprehensively and consistently. I would say that right now, Wikipedia is basically adrift in this area. we have individiuals begging admins to take action on harassment, and being told lackadaiscally that it is not so bad. the reason for this is simple; admins are not under any obligation to step out of the discussion process, and furthermore, they can basically respond as they see fit. if they see the discussion as kind of interesting, they can ignore the pleas of a single user.

I see one clear alternative to end such outbreaks and such problems. we can basically decide that any mention of a user by name, gives that user the right to say whether they are or are not comfortable with such personal references by name; if they are not, then such references to them personally have to end. period. in other words, the person being referred to gets to decide whether they are or are not comfortable with the manner in which they are being spoken of. such a measure might sound constraining, but actually it is not. it basically levels the playing field, and gives everyone here a chance to express themselves, without worry of being harassed based on how popular or unpopular their views may be.

basically, we will be adopting a standard similar to the US Congress, or any large deliberative body. Even in the US Congress, members are constantly being admonished to address all comments to the chair, not to each other. in the same note, editors here would be told to address the group at large, not an individual editor, if that editor has already expressed any discomfot whatsoever with such references. adopting this guideline is the only way to restore some order amidst the chaos. in my opinion, too many admins are treating this like a hobby. if an editor comes to them, and says there was any personal comment that they found offensive or intrusive, right now the admin is likely to avoid involvement, or to tell them, "it was just one occurence." in my view, the admin must step in and tell the offending party that they do not have the other editor's consent to refer to them by name, and therefore they cannot do so. full stop. do we have any right to allow even a small degree of harassment to occur? do we know what each individual editor's circumstances may be? do we know which ones are in faily comfortable circumstances, and alternately which ones are in a vulnerable state in some part of their personal lives?

we do not. and therefore, we must seek to protect individual editors here to the maximum and highest degree that is feasibly possible. only a trained medical professional like yourself will be able to grasp the significance of these concerns, and the need to respond in a professional manner. other people here will simply respond based on their own casual interests, without taking any account of the deeper issues that pertain to individuals' sense of security and safety. I am very glad that you are in the position that you are in. Wikipedia is very fortunate to have an educated professional like yourself in this position, and in a position on the board where you are able to do something about this.

I would really appreciate any help or input that you could please provide on this. could you please reply when you have a chance, and let me know your thoughts? I greatly appreciate it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

With respect to definitions, there is work ongoing on codes of conduct which may help. Wikipedia is very much self governing however and a significant portion of the community will need to agree to changes for meaningful change to occur. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Psychosis

Yes, the former version is what DSM-5 mentioned. Please refer to DSM-5 page on 823 - 824.--Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what the text "artificially concluded by psychiatrists and neurologists" is attempting to mean.[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for the reply, I posted some original text from the reference book on its talk page. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source yet?

May I have your opinion on the reference as follows, namely, is the recently approved change proposal for DSM-5 considered a reliable source?

• "Proposed Changes". Home │ psychiatry.org. 2019-07-01. Retrieved 2020-01-18.

Gratitude! --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Doc James is away, Im certain he'll answer ASAP( BTW, APA is reliable)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Ozzie10aaaa. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Dustmites are ubiquitous what do you want to use it to say? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: "Daily adaptive functioning is more diagnostic of intellectual developmental disorder than intellectual quotient even though they are related."

Based on this text "DSM-5 abandoned specific IQ scores as a diagnostic criterion, although it retained the general notion of functioning two or more standard deviations below the general population. DSM-5 has placed more emphasis on adaptive functioning and the performance of usual life skills."? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice. it sounds comprehensive. Perhaps I gonna ask more opinion from Medicine Project's Talk page before I update intellectual developmental disorder. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

A complete blood count already can tell if anemia is present and did you mean a ferritin test or ferritin count ?

It is not clear for me, let us make it clear for everyone. ThanksWalidou47 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Walidou47 Can you remind me of the edit again? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James Sure it is an edit that happened in the diarrhea article, chronic diarrhea diagnosis section.Walidou47 (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Walidou47 Okay thanks. Text was "Complete blood count and a ferritin if anemia is present" So ferritin is only recommended if one finds anemia on a CBC. Not sure what you thin is unclear about this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James Maybe we could add what you've just said "ferritin is only recommended if one finds anemia on a CBC."Walidou47 (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Or more concise "a ferritin is recommended if one finds anemia"Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James agreedWalidou47 (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Question

This is a question related to ulcers... I ate one orange however decided to swallow one of the segments whole (for no reason in particular). I did this on an empty stomach... Can oranges cause ulcers? I assume that this is also bad for digestion but I only did it for one segment of an orange. Also related question, are the intestines able to handle the acidity of an orange? I read that oranges are mild acids.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

For general information, please read Peptic ulcer disease#Cause for all known causes of digestive tract ulcers, and in particular read Peptic ulcer disease#Diet.

Per Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer,

WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE

Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date. The overwhelming majority of such articles are written, in part or in whole, by nonprofessionals. Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms.

The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor.

None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this web site.

Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine.

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Hipposcrashed per Guy I do not give medical advice here. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry. I didn't know. I wish Wikipedia made templates for this so people could use this as a notice. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Disclaimers. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Your input is requested

at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view by Friday.

Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.

Doc, I can't believe I forgot about you on this. The article is getting too big and taking up too much of the time I don't have! I'll have to close it off fairly soon to contributions. It's explained further on the page and there are lots (and lots) of examples.

All the best,

User:Smallbones I think it is looking good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Gua sha

Hi Doc James. Hope you are well, we have not been in touch for quite a while. I was looking at gua sha and this photo does not look quite like post gua sha treatment. It looks nothing like someone who has undergone treatment and the setting looks like a bed that has been slept in with tousled sheets, mushed pillows etc. Could you let me know what you think? Appreciated, thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Rui Gabriel Correia I do not know... Not something that is practiced in my community. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

• From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium

• News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia

• Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta

• In the media: Turkey's back up, but what's happening with Dot-org and a new visual identity?

• Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, we're all winners

• News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations

• Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015

• In focus: Cryptos and bitcoins and blockchains, oh no!

• Recent research: How useful is Wikipedia for novice programmers trying to learn computing concepts?

• From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report

• Humour: Predicting the 6,000,000th article

• Obituary: Remembering Wikipedia contributor Brian Boulton

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

article revert

not certain how to proceed here[6]editor has been blocked before [7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

As they are a blocked sock we should just revert. Have struck my mistake. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa and Doc James: Umm, pretty sure I'm not a sock, and I'm not blocked. There's a discussion underway on my talk page which you're welcome to continue. I also suggested moving to WT:MED. Doc, please be more careful with those kinds of claims. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Deacon Vorbis my apologies. Mixed your username up with another account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries; I'm sure we've all been there –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

2nd look

I saw your participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurbaksh Chahal (2nd nomination). I don't know if you've followed the connected ANI thread, but I was wondering what you think of this~ Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra 23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra good to see them indefinitely blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep Thanks, long 4 days.-- Deepfriedokra 08:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

heh

Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal-- Didn't take long.-- Deepfriedokra 08:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

nifedepine wiki

As a medical student, I constantly look up medications. Having the class of medication in the opening sentence is hugely useful in being able to figure out what the medication is and what it does. Having to read through 10 sentences to figure out it's a calcium channel blocker is not helpful. Please allow the opening sentence to contain the class. Thank you.

Acidxeno (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Acidxeno The class is also in the infobox. The class fits with the mechanism of action. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Type 3 diabetes

Hi James,

thank you for your message. Have added references to our groups edits. Please let me know if there's anything obvious that needs changing, very happy to fix asap, our med school students group is new to the wikipedia medicine project. Reversing our edits in the middle of group work makes it a bit tricky for us to continue making edits so if you could please message us first and give us a chance to fix first that would wonderful.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missfirefly (talk • contribs) 17:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That's why God made nurses-- to reference med students and interns.-- Deepfriedokra 08:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Missfirefly high quality references are required when you add content. Stuff that is lacking these will generally be removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to see that you reverted my most recent edit

You reverted my most recent edit to the article "Color Blindness" on January 28th. But can i get to know why you did that so?

Yah as stated you need a reference to support your change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Electrotherapy Page: Section Instrumentational Electrotherapy

Dear Doc James

Instrumentational electrotherapy is a method for physiheraphy students. I am a PhD PT and my studies are non profit. Dr Alex Ward died 2 years ago. There are very limited number of scientist who work on this topic.

The studies are for non profit purpose, links were given for lecturers to how to build their own patient simulators. Most of the books cited in google play are free or non profit.

The online tools are for simulation prupose.

If possible I would like you to check the content of instrumentational electrotherapy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafetirmak (talk • contribs) 06:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Rafetirmak please see WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)