User talk:Doc James/Archive 93

Mediterranean diet[edit]

Hi, Doc James.

If you are so kind, I would like you to give your opinion on this issue:

This text, included on revision of 14 December 2015 [1] was removed on this revision of 28 April (→‎Health effects: rv conjecture per WP:FRINGE & WP:NOTOPINION)

I reworded it [2] and it was again modified by "curious" reasons (→‎Health effects: copyedit and trim for balanced perspective, WP:NPOV; trim per WP:OVERCITE), with a result not supported by the source: "Depending on the bread products selected". Where does it figure on the source???

Mention about gluten was removed at this revision [3]

IMO, to confer really neutrality to the section "Health effects", we must state both beneficial and negative effects, even in a minority of people, which is an indiscutbile reality, perfectly supported by many reliable sources.

If you agree, can you review and reformulate from these texts?: [4] [5]

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Spain right now. Will look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doc James. What do you think about this? Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Head lice infestation[edit]

Hi, I already added a reference, I'm sorry I couldn't find one in English, I guess in Spanish is ok, if it's taken from the Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría web. Please talk to me before reverting my edit. --RoRo (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Spanish source is not great. I am not seeing it as supporting the content in question per here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no Spanish sources: you may like to know every biologist who worked with insects and other arthropods knows ethanol kills all of them, I could find many sources for that affirmation alone, i.e. this one: "...It has been shown that at concentrations higher than 95%, commercial alcohol preserves DNA (Nagy 2010), but the use of highly concentrated commercial alcohol as a killing solution may be prohibitively expensive when needed in large quantities, such as in large-scale biodiversity sampling. In Brazil, for example, it is illegal to carry large amounts of commercial alcohol on long journeys, which could hinder its use in extensive field expeditions. Here we propose the use of ethanol fuel as a cheaper and logistically feasible alternative..." Szinwelski, N., Fialho, V. S., Yotoko, K. S. C., Seleme, L. R., & Sperber, C. F. (2012). Ethanol fuel improves arthropod capture in pitfall traps and preserves DNA. ZooKeys, (196), 11–22. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.196.3130 So what do you think, it's ok to put that claim in a pediculosis article? --RoRo (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets continue on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glioblastoma multiforme[edit]

Hello Doc James: I want to become a more experienced Wikipedia editor, and therefore would like your feedback on why you cut my text (“intranasal drug delivery”) on the Glioblastoma multiforme page on May 7, 2016. In particular:

(i) The original, primary scientific publications describe 2 clinical studies. One study was performed with recurrent GBM patients, the other study included primary patients. In GBM this distinction is important, because recurrent patients are usually treatment resistant (after having undergone radiation plus temozolomide), whereas primary patients are treatment-naïve. So, IMHO, it would be relevant to mention both studies, whereas you reduced these 2 studies to “A small study…”. Agreed to mention both studies?

(ii) The two studies included several hundred patients. Malignant glioma (grade III+IV) is a rare (orphan) disease; therefore, several hundred patients should not be considered a “small” study. Agreed?

(iii) I realize that Wikipedia prefers MEDRS-type articles, and several references of this type had been added, in addition to the respective primary articles. However, you deleted all of the primary articles. Would it not be okay to have at least one primary reference of the original clinical studies?

(iv) You also deleted any reference to the fact that clinical trials have been initiated here in the US (the first two trials were done in Brazil). You don’t think that this is worthy of mentioning? [Several other sections on this page do mention clinical trials (with reference to ClinicalTrials.gov).]

Looking forward to your feedback and learning from it. I would like to add back in some of the deleted text, but want to avoid back-and-forth editing. Thank you. Ossky (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes trimmed the primary studies. Do the reviews you added comment on them?

We do not typically use clinical trials.gov to comment on what trials are ongoing. There are of course a lot of trials ongoing in the US for GBM https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=glioblastoma+&Search=Search The ref does not make it clear why this one was important.

Best

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talkback[edit]

Hello. You have a new message at Baffle_gab1978's talk page. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent statements[edit]

Hi James. Denny states on May 2 2016 "I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding of information when asked for, his secrecy towards other Board members, even once the conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes." Lorente says on 31 Dec 2015 that "Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations." I originally read Lorente's statement as referring to your breach of confidentiality. But Denny's statement suggests it was the other way round. You were being too confidential, as it were. Or is Lorente referring to another set of discussions? Peter Damian (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Peter Damian, I was involved with providing the new investigating committee an in depth report of the concerns we had discovered. I do not believe that me providing specific emails added to what was in that report and was also hesitant to provide them since some of the concerns were collected in confidence. The degree of transparency around the long term strategy of the WMF should be very different from that of private communications with staff.

With respect to Denny's request that I take "ownership" of my actions, I assume he is referring to the claim by some members of the board that I misled staff regarding how the board was going to vote in November. I do not believe I mislead staff. And this has been corroborated by at least some staff.[7] I never guaranteed that the board would make a specific decision or claimed that I spoke for more than 10% of the board. I was open about the fact that I took staff concerns very seriously and voted along the lines of that position. So yes I refused to take ownership for something I do not consider I did.

With respect to Lorente's claim that I breached confidentiality, I am not entirely sure to what he refers. When Lorente made this semi public statement commented on by Oliver here "my concern is that when staff reached out the Board replied with a letter indicating they had full and unanimous confidence in our leadership" he did so without my consent. I did privately clarify this statement and my position to the staff who reached out to me, so he may be referring to my clarification.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I need to think about this. Peter Damian (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

User:İnternion My request has been marked for deletion --İnternion (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure why the request User:İnternion Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of this issue.[edit]

redirected to PHARM. Jytdog (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This entire article, and all of the articles on the drugs involved, are riddled with significant errors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1_antagonist

This is incredibly detrimental to human health. I've been making some edits to attempt to reflect the research as of 2016:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenhydramine#Mechanism_of_action

Diphenhydramine is an inverse agonist of the histamine H1 receptor.[38]

That was an edit I made, because I am not good at making more sophisticated changes with the tables and so forth. Another person(s) read my edit and changed the article to reflect the current research. It is worth noting that that drug has been used in the United States and abroad for 70 years before I came along and made that edit. This is extremely distressing.

Of course the scientific article I cite must be studied, at least for a moment, but there is no paywall and I will provide the text so it can be quickly examined:

Since all H 1-antihistamines examined to date have shown inverse agonists, it is suggested that the term "H 1-receptor antagonists" be replaced by "H 1-antihistamines." [41],[42]

Constitutional activity is also demonstrated at H 2 receptors. Many H 2 receptor antagonists, such as cimetidine, ranitidine, tiotidine, and famotidine, described previously as pure H 2 antagonists, actually behave as inverse agonists and diminish basal cAMP levels. By using transfected Chinese hamster ovarian (CHO) cells expressing different densities of wild-type H 2 receptors or uncoupled H 2 (Leu124Ala) receptors, considerable agonist-independent H 2 receptor activity was found. [43] Ranitidine and cimetidine acted as inverse agonists (both induced H 2 receptor upregulation), whereas burimamide was shown to be a neutral antagonist.

Cumulative anticholinergic use is associated with an increased risk for dementia.[28][29]

I am willing to take some time in carefully edit some or many articles, studying each drug to make sure my accuracy is as good as can be expected. On that Benadryl article, I replaced a paper that was published in 1994, kind of distressing since the human genome project was completed in 2003.

The problem is that the organizational structure supporting all these drugs is something that I cannot edit. I am a novice user.

This next bit is a little more theoretical and will certainly not be reflected in my editing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_epigenetics#Learning_and_memory

Studies in rodents have found that the environment exerts an influence on epigenetic changes related to cognition, in terms of learning and memory;[4] environmental enrichment correlated with increased histone acetylation, and verification by administering histone deacetylase inhibitors induced sprouting of dendrites, an increased number of synapses, and reinstated learning behaviour and access to long-term memories.[1][28] Research has also linked learning and long-term memory formation to reversible epigenetic changes in the hippocampus and cortex in animals with normal-functioning, non-damaged brains.[1][29] In human studies, post-mortem brains from Alzheimer's patients show increased histone de-acetylase levels.[30][31]

Alzheimer's disease accounts for over 60% of dementia.

This suggests the potential for Anticholinergic drugs may be involved in epigenetics. Maybe.

I've been to Southeast Asia and China and people develop allergies due to the pollution (epigenetics have been linked) and treat them with antihistamines, which could potentially lead to more epigenetic changes that are very harmful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_information_on_Wikipedia#Other_views

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has said that lack of health information increases preventable deaths in emerging markets and that health information from Wikipedia can improve community health.[29] Wales presented the Wikipedia Zero project as a channel for delivering health information into places where people have difficulty accessing online information.[29]

I myself use Longvida Curcumin to prevent cognitive dysfunction that may come with aging. Very powerful HDAC inhibitor.

In any case, please be aware that I have also forwarded a variant of this message to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seppi333

But I am really trying to get things moving along, because we've been using this for 70 years already. Benadryl came out in 1946. We need to crap or get off the pot already.

Hello from the East coast, I see you are from the West, getting hot 'ere by', just switched from winter to summer in one day. Wish we had spring here, dying from the heat.

Regards Salvia420 (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Salvia420 they main thing we need to do is make sure we stick with high quality sources per WP:MEDRS. Which issue are you most concerned about? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The change I want to make[edit]

All of H1 antagonists (Benadryl, etc) are inverse agonists. Also some H2 are inverse agonists as well.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11972592

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195115/

That is what I want to change.

To be perfectly clear,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenhydramine#Mechanism_of_action

This article above is right because I editted, and would still be wrong right now if I did not.

The rest are all wrong save a few.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1_antagonist

I cannot do anything except edit sections, and am not willing to learn.

Salvia420 (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse agonist and antagonists overlap. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we just call everything antagonists? If we have a bag of circle shapes and square shapes, do we call them all squares? Assuming that what you are saying is right (we are talking specifically about H1 receptor here, we are dealing with the H1_antagonist article on Wikipedia. The literature states: "Since all H1 -antihistamines examined to date have shown inverse agonists, it is suggested that the term “H1 -receptor antagonists” be replaced by “H1 -antihistamines.”"^[1] In that case, they do not overlap and you could even rename it H1_Inverse_agonist. But I think that is counterproductive and we should adhere to the literature in moving away from characterizing them by their reception actions. These are dirty drugs and labeling them antagonist or inverse agonist and so forth is inappropriate. There are some crossovers once you start looking at the H2 receptor sites. Or if the literature is wrong and not all H1 antagonists are inverse agonists as it states, I find it very hard to believe its a good idea to name them all antagonists or inverse agonists. It's completely misleading and inaccurate, and harms the credibility of Wikipedia. I cannot be wrong here. By the way, this results minor increased rates of Alzheimer's disease with cumulative use, and you would expect these receptor sites to be up-regulated if they were antagonists. But that does not happen. Regards Salvia420 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James just to jump in here - I don't know how much you have dug into this but the background here is that folks used to think antihistamines were just antagonists - that they temporarily blocked the active site of the receptor so the receptor couldn't be activiated by histamine. But histamine receptors are GPCRs and like lots of GPCRs (and other receptors) they are moving all the time, shifting between "off" and "on", and they have a low level of constitutive "on" activity that is actually important to normal health. What the antihistamines do via this "inverse agonism" is that they bind off the receptor site and stabilize the receptor in the "off" position so that they kill even the background constitutive "on" activity, and folks think this is what causes some of the side effects of anihistamines. This does seem to be the current view. I don't agree that it is as urgent as it is being framed but it does seem useful to update articles to reflect this. Perhaps folks at WT:PHARM would be willing to help this person? I can post there about this if you like. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog sounds reasonable. If this is the current terminology happy to see it updated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that many of the 'antagonists' for G-protein-coupled receptors are actually inverse agonists, but the function difference between an inverse agonist and an inverse agonist is very subtle for native receptors which usually have little intrinsic activity. Most of the studies showing signficant effects occur in cell lines (like CHO cells) in which many receptors are forcibly expressed (over-expressed); showing important effects in real tissues is tricky. That's why the IUPHAR nomenclature still lists many such drugs as both "antagonists" and "inverse agonists" (see, for example, the listing of drugs that act at the H1 receptor). So, I don't think that there is a need for a title change, nor should Wikipedia be leading nomenclature change ahead of industry-recognised guides. Klbrain (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Klbrain thanks also sounds very reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog it is worth mentioning that these have been linked to with a minor increased risk in dementia. In Alzheimer's patients epigenetic factors can be observed^[2] which are also important in things such as reinstating learning behaviors, long term memory, sprouting dendrites etc. Therefore it may influence humans on a very subtle level. At a level we may never understand, actually, we will never be able to obtain human brain tissue or experiment on humans.^[3] Rodent students are not something that is particularly valuable when a human with an education and life experience, etc, is losing their mind to Alzheimer's. The research is almost always going to be cor-relational and not directly indicating causation. No one else will do anything, all of these organizations have people in them connected with companies, lobbiests, etc, etc, these drugs make a lot of money. We can barely get the fact up there that these drugs can effect the minds of old people. I mean if I take bendaryl, it will effect my mind. This stuff is a no brainer. But the fact is, is that a word has to mean something. There are drugs that are actual antagonists. You can say that they are antagonists and be honest when you say that. I don't understand why we are waiting for some corrupt organization to allow us to tell others that an antagonist is not an inverse agonist. You will find cures with epigenetics but never the causes of disease. Never will we find the causes and establish a solid link. But words lose their usefulness when the word does not connect with the idea. How can anyone say that H1 antagonist connects to the idea of a receptor site being antagonized? Inverse agonism is there, we admit it's happening. It doesn't matter if that has any effects, what matters is that the word is completely accurate, and if it is inaccurate, then it doesn't matter what anyone else says, because a square is not a circle, and we are intelligent people. This is not a crazy rant, if words don't work anymore then we are screwed, honestly. It's not just an antagonist. And anyones opinion of what an inverse agonist is irrelevant. If it causes epigenetic problems, we'll all be dead from old age before we ever know. And why does the mechanics section of diphenhydramine^[4] still say it is an inverse agonist if it didn't matter? I don't understand this at all. I have a liberal arts degree, so I don't understand the medical sophisms here, and that is not to be rude, but I did learn Latin, and that was used for all the medical terminology, and I know that a word is supposed to be accurate and do something. These are not H1 antagonists, the word is obsolete thanks to modern research, the research in this medicines citations are garbage, from 1994, that's 9 years before the human genome project was ever completed. It seems urgent to me, the fact that we take drugs and we have no idea what they do. We never will. The cause of autism is epigeneticly related and the rates are skyrocketing. We should be worried to at least provide objective and accurate names for the functions of drugs, and be the source of change instead of waiting for people to tell us that a square is not a circle. An antagonist is not an inverse agonist. Really all it comes down to is that single sentence, for the basic fact is, is that a word is a word. A light is either on or off. It's ridiculous that anyone thinks they need permission to be told what "on" means. This is a bit of a rant, but no matter how educated you are, you will never be able to tell me an antagonist is an inverse agonists, or someone needs to wait to approve that. That is not how words work, are things so complicated now that on can also mean off? We might as well start barking at each other like dogs, words just are abstract sounds at this point. It's the truth. More than my opinion when it comes to that point I'm afraid, regardless of anything else said. I'm either right or the mechanisms of action section in Diphenhydramine ought to be rewritten as antagonist, so the word connects to the idea it represents.

References

Salvia420 (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user:Salvia420 Doc James has made it pretty clear that this is not something he is going to get into (he is more of an MD than a pharmacologist so that makes sense) - you really should take this up at the thread I opened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Update_content_on_antihistamines. I am going to close this thread so it doesn't keep burgeoning. Jytdog (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DMT1[edit]

Very disappointed to see the only doctor to be removed from the Wiki Trustee. Anyway, could you please take a look at Talk:Diabetes mellitus type 1, regarding "comorbidities with other autoimmune disease", I'm a bit surprised there's nothing included there 1.129.97.52 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the words of support. I will run again. Will take a look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request[edit]

Hi Doc James,

I'll address this edit request to SlimVirgin as well since DocJames is on vacation. Would you please add a sentence to the finasteride "society and culture" section about the ongoing product liability issues? I have not added this in the past because I expected it would be rapidly removed due to the degree of tension on that article. Nonetheless, I think it is notable and WP:MEDORDER specifies that legal issues should be included in the "society and culture" section.

I recommend a simple sentence that closely mirrors the company's quarterly report. "As of March 31, 2016, approximately 1,385 product liability lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs against Merck who allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment with finasteride." The source should be their latest financial report at http://s21.q4cdn.com/755037021/files/doc_financials/quarterly/2016/Q1/1Q16-Form-10-Q.pdf.

I also think the first paragraph of the section about the historical finasteride ban is no longer notable since it the drug has been re-instated. I would like to have that paragraph deleted as well but mostly just see it as trivial information.

JYTDog has offered to "walk away from the article" if I refrain from editing indirectly, so this is my effort to uphold my part. Thanks - Doors22 (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James and Doors22, I've copied this request to Talk:Finasteride so that others can comment on it. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cholera Edit Page Request[edit]

Doc James,

We are coming to you as three anthropology students at the University of Kansas and doing a class project on Cholera. We would like to edit the cholera page for class and we are going to include scholarly information . We are new users so making edits can be difficult but the information we have is strong and we would like to contribute this information to the cholera page.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culvesam (talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly User:Culvesam. Make sure you read WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. Also User:Doc James/Students provides advice to new users. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fetal tissue transplantation[edit]

Hello I cant find my article pertaining to Fetal tissue transplantation.please help and clarify a bit about moving the article.

````` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajechele (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the content to your talk page as an article on that topic already existed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fetal Tissue Transplantation shouldn't have been moved to Fetal tissue implant not correct[edit]

Hello, You shouldn't have done that when the article contains the first of its kind of work done by some eminent researchers supported by the government. The article is more related to stem cell and its implications in cell therapy with a view of fetal cell therapy on a wide scale basis in cases of different ailments. If you look into the content of it is surely describes a lot more than what fetal tissue implant actually describes. Not correct absolutely not correct. A lot of care was taken to make that article informative with a view of modern medicine and now it has been moved to Fetal Tissue implant an article which doesn't contain anything at all.Not correct absolutely not correct. It was nothing but years of experience of different researchers in this field.

Bajechele (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fetal tissue transplantation is the same as fetal tissue implantation. We do not need to separate articles on the same thing. Please read WP:MEDRS and you may edit that article and add the content supported by appropriate sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ar Wikipedia[edit]

Dear Doc James,

I had been banned from editing because of machine translations, and pulled the editing powers and and was stripped of my powers. Iam a contributer in ar.wikipedia.

My User ID: 272235

My Total edits: 12,703

Number Of Articles 288.

is that happened to me legal according to wikipedia policies ,or exceeding the arbitrariness of administrative powers.

I hope I receive an explanation,

Execuse me for interrupting you.

--نبيل عبدالقادر عبدالوهاب (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:نبيل عبدالقادر عبدالوهاب you have lost your ability to edit ar.wikipedia? Have you reached out to the blocking admin? Did this go through a community process? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk · contribs

Yes I had lost my ability to edit ar. Wikipedia . No I did not reach out to the blocking admin. No this was not gone through a community process.

today while I am editing the artiele إصابة الرباط الصليبي الأمامي Anterior cruciate ligament injury in ar.wikipedia, I been blocked.

--نبيل عبدالقادر عبدالوهاب (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would be good to ask them for justification. I am course struggle with following up as my ability to read Arabic is very low. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TS speculation[edit]

Hey, Doc ... could you keep an eye on this? Just saying hi, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:SandyGeorgia. Will watchlist it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intranasal drug delivery/glioblastoma[edit]

Hello Doc: I am new at editing and have asked for your feedback before. Am trying again here. I envision that I can make sensible and valuable contributions here and there, but I am still stuck with my very first edit, where I simply do not understand why your reversions. I have read walls of text about how to edit, and have read lots of pages as examples to get a feel for WP style. Yet, of course, you are vastly more experienced than I am, and therefore I am trying to receive useful guidance from you. So, with regard to my edit on Intranasal Drug Delivery on the Glioblastoma page:

(i) Glioblastoma is a rare/orphan disease; a clinical phase I/II trial with hundreds of patients is unusually large. It is simply incorrect of you to label that study on intranasal perillyl alcohol a “small” study. Why do you insist on “small”? (ii) It seems to be rather trivial to have a statement that “a study has been conducted” — without adding a brief informative comment on the outcome (e.g., “encouraging results” — so stated in the referenced secondary literature). Other similar sections I see on WP do provide such a note on outcome. Why do you deem it inappropriate here? Why do you object to adding a referenced comment on the outcome? (iii) The section on Gene Therapy (directly above) as well as many other WP pages, has extensive text descriptions and details of ongoing clinical trials — why do you deem it inappropriate to mention (+ link) the clinical trial on intranasal delivery here in the US?

Sorry if I keep banging on this issue. I’d like to move on, but feel that my approach via succinct, attempted neutral, referenced statements is not working. It seems I am lacking basic understanding of WP policies, and I’d like to find out why. It would be great if you had the time to briefly address each of the 3 points above. I’d appreciate it. Thank you. Ossky (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you. Why did you remove "Direct nose-to-brain drug delivery is being explored as a means to achieve higher, and hopefully more effective, drug concentrations in the brain.^[1]^[2]"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. My answer: After my first edit, editor Jytdog deleted my text and commented “we don’t know if it works yet or not.” My interpretation of his comment was that he was referring to the “direct nose-to-brain” mechanism. In response, I did some reading on this issue. My interpretation of the literature is this: it is indeed unclear, at least in the case of perillyl alcohol, how it gets into the brain. The clinical studies do show that intranasal perillyl alcohol works for brain cancer; however, they do not show the underlying mechanism of transport into the brain that is responsible for the therapeutic outcome. It could be: (i) direct nose-to-brain transport (circumventing the blood-brain barrier), or (ii) uptake by the mucosa into the systemic bloodstream and from there into the brain (across the BBB), or (iii) since it is inhalation: uptake into the lungs, from there into the systemic bloodstream, and from there into the brain (across the BBB). Based on these unresolved possibilities, I thought that perhaps it could be misleading to start this section by emphasizing “nose-to-brain drug delivery”. Therefore, while there seems to be a therapeutic effect, I thought that Jytdog had a point in stating that we don’t yet know the mechanism of it. Thanks. Ossky (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC) I'd be happy to see that comment back in, though. I only tried to be super objective and critical. Ossky (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two refs are specifically about nose to brain drug delivery.[8][9] thus IMO mentioning that is important.

Which comment do you wish to see back in? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the feedback, Doc. Have re-inserted 1 earlier sentence. Hope it is succinct, informative, and objective to meet WP standards. At least from my perspective, presentation style and format is no different than comparative text passages on this same site and many other WP sites. Hope these 2 sentences will stand for a while. Thanks again for the feedback. Ossky (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Matthias van Woensel, Nathalie Wauthoz, Rémi Rosière, Karim Amighi, Véronique Mathieu, Florence Lefranc, Stefaan W. van Gool, Steven de Vleeschouwer (2013). "Formulations for Intranasal Delivery of Pharmacological Agents to Combat Brain Disease: A New Opportunity to Tackle GBM?". Cancers (Basel). 5 (3): 1020–48. PMID 24202332.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Pardeshi CV, Belgamwar VS (2013). "Direct nose to brain drug delivery via integrated nerve pathways bypassing the blood-brain barrier: an excellent platform for brain targeting". Expert Opinion in Drug Delivery. 10 (7): 957–72. PMID 23586809.

Recent changes to Hypercholesterolaemia[edit]

Hi Doc James,

Thank you for checking over my work, it is always an honour to work with you!

With regard to your first comment,[edit]

"You cannot format like this "Diet has an important effect on blood cholesterol, but the size of this effect varies substantially between individuals.[15] About 50% of nonesterified cholesterol is absorbed in the intestine,[16] but interindividual variations in the efficiency of uptake, and the effect of other dietary components such as plant sterols and fiber content affect absorption.[16] Moreover, when dietary cholesterol intake goes down, production (principally by the liver[17]) typically increases, though not always with complete compensation, so that reductions in blood cholesterol can be modest. "

This was the original formatting from the wikipedia article before I began editing it, I merely moved this content from one section to another without changing it. For the sake of my own learning, however, were the errors that reference 16 was used twice within the one sentence, and reference 17 was before rather than after the punctuation?

User:Nren4237 Looking at your edits more closely [10]

Before you edit the ref was formatted as "Diet has an important effect on blood cholesterol, but the size of this effect varies substantially between individuals.<ref>{{cite journal|date=June 1997|title=Plasma lipid and lipoprotein responses to dietary fat and cholesterol: a meta-analysis|url=|journal=Am. J. Clin. Nutr.|volume=65|issue=6|pages=1747–64|doi=|pmid=9174470|author=Howell WH, McNamara DJ, Tosca MA, Smith BT, Gaines JA}}</ref>"

After it was formatted as "Diet has an important effect on blood cholesterol, but the size of this effect varies substantially between individuals.<sup>[15]</sup>"

Not sure what happened. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apologies, I didn't realize this is what happened. It may have been an issue with the visual editor when I cut and paste the text, I'll be more careful next time! Thank you for picking this up. Also, thank you for taking the time to clean up the article, I feel it looks much better now. I'll keep working on adding new information to these sections and other articles. My pet topic is primary and secondary prevention, so expect to see more of me on those pages! Nren4237 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Yes I am not sure if cut and paste works in VE. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your second comment,[edit]

"What ref supported this? "Dietary modification to improve blood cholesterol levels include reducing dietary cholesterol, reducing saturated fats, increasing plant stanol and sterol esters, increasing fiber, and maintaining a healthy weight."

This sentence was intended to serve as an introductory sentence, listing the dietary interventions which would be discussed in more detail below. In this kind of situation, should we add references to each part of the introductory sentence as well?

The question of whether or not dietary cholesterol affects blood cholesterol is unclear. Per "evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol" [11]

Will update Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated here Hypercholesterolemia#Diet_2

Added a ref for the other bit Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for including this source! I thought the rest of the paragraph was implying that dietary cholesterol is a cause of hypercholesterolaemia, but on closer inspection it doesn't seem to state though. My apologies! Nren4237 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your third comment,[edit]

"This content is a source from 1986? That is too old."

I agree with you on the age of the source, but this is what UpToDate used as their reference on the topic: "PLANT STEROLS — Plant sterols are similar in chemical structure to cholesterol, differing in their side chain configuration. The mechanism by which they lower cholesterol is thought to involve inhibition of cholesterol absorption [101,102]. " (http://www.uptodate.com/contents/lipid-lowering-with-diet-or-dietary-supplements?source=see_link#H13). Reference 101 was the one I listed, whereas reference 102 is from 1997 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=9164705). Would this be more acceptable? I had assumed that the reason that UpToDate used these references is that, like most drug mechanisms, they are a fairly non-controversial point of basic science and therefore are not frequently re-explored once earlier papers have established their validity.

Thank you for taking the time to re-integrate the new information into reverted article. However, I note that your reversions have still left substantial sections on active interventions in the "causes" section, which is one of the problems I was trying to fix. I feel that the "causes" section should be limited only to information on etiology, and should not contain sections like "The inclusion of 2 g per day of plant stanol or sterol esters and 10 to 20 g per day of soluble fiber decrease dietary cholesterol absorption.[6] Dietary changes can typically achieve reductions of 10 to 15% in blood cholesterol.[6]". Please let me know your thoughts! Nren4237 (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nren4237 Agree belongs in the treatment section and have moved.[12]

Let me know if I missed anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...good faith ... spam account..."[edit]

How are these two statements consistent? "(Reverted good faith edits by User:Grace Wildt (talk): Appears to be a spam account. (TW))" This taxes my meager intellect. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 22:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine they are doing it in good faith. But they are working to add links to a single website. user:sfarney your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the problem. I originally saw it as obvious spam, but then the idea occurred to me that the editor stumbled over the site with many subjects, and thought, "Hey, I bet Wiki could use this too!" And then went about sowing the links. But the user is now banned -- by you -- for this action (judging by the user's page), so it would seem you have made up your mind that the edits were not "good faith". I am puzzled that the user does not have a personal page. So I am out of my depth. I wish the user were available for consultation. And I presume that the source has previously been considered and rejected as RS. (I moved the reftalk notes up the page) 23:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Basically I reverted assuming good faith. Than noticed all the prior warning and reviewed that this issue was ongoing. So I blocked them to hopefully facilitate discussion. Maybe overhanded. I have no concerns with them being unblocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 23:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016[edit]

News and notes: Affiliates' nomination of WMF trustees announced; FDC's straight talking to WMF

Op-ed: Swiss chapter in turmoil

In the media: Wikimedia's Dario Taraborelli quoted on Google's Knowledge Graph in The Washington Post

Featured content: Two weeks for the prize of one

Traffic report: Oh behave, Beyhive / Underdogs

Arbitration report: "Wikicology" ends in site ban; evidence and workshop phases concluded for "Gamaliel and others"

Wikicup: That's it for WikiCup Round 2!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Echostage[edit]

While I understand that it was not yet accurately paraphrased and cited, you deleted the article too suddenly while I was editing it for me to fix the errors. Though marked for discussion about possible deletion, I was asked to edit and fix the article, which I was doing, when you deleted it. Is it possible for you to undo the deletion, so that I may accurately repair the errors in the article so that at least it can be discussed before the sudden deletion as is usually the case for the deletion of articles. In the very least it could have been marked as a stub. Thanks for your help.

--Soccerfray (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was more or less copied from the source http://www.echostage.com/about/

And that source is not independent of the subject in question.

Please use independent sources and paraphrase. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BacDive links[edit]

Hello! I see you've noticed users AnnaVetci and L.C.Reimer adding tons of links to BacDive to microbe articles (contributions: 1, 2). Both are newer accounts and both have almost exclusively been adding the links. Given the similarity of their usernames to authors on this paper, I assume they are involved in BacDive. I'm sure they mean well, and we could certainly use as many bacteriologists as we can get, but I think some discussion is in order before the link-adding continues (Ideally we could bring them into the fold rather than shout at them and scare them off). What do you think is the appropriate forum for this discussion? WP Microbiology would make some sense, but it's too quiet there and I fear a discussion there won't attract many opinions. Some guidance would be appreciated. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ajpolino agree with you completely. What they have is a database and there data would fit better in Wikidata rather than as an external link. I have left them both messages on their talk page.

And we have a discussion going here [13]

A few that were added as an IP may still require removal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! I hadn't noticed the discussion at WP:Med.Ajpolino (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aspart_protamin[edit]

Hi, I came across this page during New Page Patrol. I'm not sure what you were trying to do - are you working on an article there? I didn't want to just tag it since you're not a new user obviously - just wanted to make sure you didn't forget about it! Intelligentsium 01:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Intelligentsium fixed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Seborovki[edit]

Hello Doc, can you please undelete Carole Seborovki? You've deleted it on grounds of G12, but only one sentence from the URL you gave in the summary is copyvio. I'm happy to rewrite that sentence immediately. Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the content here [14]. We delete copyright issues. Content must be paraphrased from the get go. Not added as a copy and paste and then paraphrased. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have pasted below the none copied stuff User:OnionRing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

[[File:FrontImageBig.jpg|thumb]] '''Carole Seborovski''' (born San Diego, California, 1960), Seborovski received her Bachelo of Fine Arts from the [[California College of the Arts]], Oakland, California in 1982.<ref name=nhaime>{{cite web|url=https://www.nohrahaimegallery.com/carole-seborovski.html|title=Carole Seborovski|publisher=Nohra Haime gallery|accessdate=21 May 2016}}</ref> From 1982-84 she studied at the [[New York Studio School]], and in 1987 she received her Masters in Fine Arts from [[Hunter College]] in New York.<ref name=nhaime/> ==References== {{reflist}} ==External links== *{{official|http://caroleseborovski.com/}}

Image is from http://caroleseborovski.com/ and the person who started it is a paid editor most likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freewheelin' 1970s-1980s contribution edited out[edit]

Hello Doc James, It appears that my recent contribution to this article was edited out by you.

Please note that I am Wolf Ruck, the producer and copyright holder of the film FREEWHEELIN' as well as the writer of the quoted synopsis which was used in printed materials used to promote distribution of the film.

I have also posted a video copy of my film and the synopsis to my YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/WolfRuck/videos?view_as=public.

Kindly undo your delete of my contribution, or advise why it has been deleted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.174.21 (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wolf if you own the video and release it under a CC BY SA license would be happy to put it on Wikipedia. If you change the youtube page to mention it is CC BY SA that should be all it will take. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doc James, Thank you for your reply, but the intention of my contribution was not to release, convey or share any material copyrights to the contents of the film FREEWHEELIN', as in giving permission to "Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format" and especially not to "Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." Rather, the intention was to describe a publicly accessible resource (e.g. the film FREEWHEELIN' on YouTube) that depicts that time period in the development of Mountain Biking and thus help to complete the historical record as currently described in Wikipedia. If the YouTube link is problematic, by all means delete the link. If the text is an issue, please advise. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.174.21 (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources for text. For videos we do not. Therefore could add the video but not the text or the url to youtube. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doc James, Thank you for your reply. Kindly specify for what text in my contribution a "reliable source for text" is required, and what/who such a "reliable source" might be in this case? If the YouTube URL is a problem, kindly advise how/why this link is treated differently from the 2006 documentary "Klunkerz" which is currently available in this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klunkerz:_A_Film_About_Mountain_Bikes). If necessary, the YT link can be deleted, although that may be an unusual inconvenience for web users and readers of Wikipedia who are accustomed to seeing and using cross-referencing links. If the quoted film synopsis is a problem, kindly specify. This synopsis has been public since FREEWHEELIN`s release in 1985 in the form of printed brochures, film library catalogues, TV broadcast guides, websites etc. It also was posted to YouTube in 2012 as part of the film`s description, and it resides there to this day. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.174.21 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added "Possibly the first and only film depicting the state of the sport in the 1980s is Wolf Ruck's lyrical 16mm film which was released in 1985 and posted to YouTube in 2012. The synopsis of that time reads: "They're called "Mountain Bikes" or "Fat Tire Flyers" by off-road enthusiasts and these dynamic human powered machines are at the leading edge of the bicycling revival sweeping the globe today. Action-packed and instructive, this film brings alive the new-found freedom, challenge and adventure which characterizes this exciting variation of self-propelled sport and recreation. Featuring expert bike handling and astounding trick riding skills, this film is pure motivational entertainment for youthful audiences and the young-at-heart of all ages."

Your wrote the text yourself. You have not provided an independent source. You have a conflict of interest. And it is very promotional text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doc James, Thank you for your reply. Below are some comments and links to sources corroborating the substance of my contribution. They are posted in the description/information section of FREEWHEELIN' on YouTube. Feel free to add them as references if that serves to avoid the impression of self-serving conflict of interest. Thank you.

...............

Published on 1 Mar 2012

SUBJECT: Off-road Cycling Length: 15mins

They're called "Mountain Bikes" or "Fat Tire Flyers" by off-road enthusiasts and these dynamic human powered machines are at the leading edge of the bicycling revival sweeping the globe today.

Action-packed and instructive, this film brings alive the new-found freedom, challenge and adventure which characterizes this exciting variation of self-propelled sport and recreation.

Featuring expert bike handling and astounding trick riding skills, this film is pure motivational entertainment for youthful audiences and the young-at-heart of all ages.

BROADCASTS: CBC National & Local TV

COMMENTS & REVIEWS

Brian Vernor says: December 13, 2014 at 11:22 am

I put an email out to some friends calling this “the first” because i wanted people to think about film vs. documentation. This is the earliest composed film about mountain biking I have found. It aims to inspire people through the camera style, and the full composition of the film, sound, color, location, you know FILMMAKING. Not to discredit important images created prior to Freewheelin’ (of which I happily acknowledge there are many), I see this film as the first in it’s intent to use filmmaking to translate the feeling of riding a mountain bike.

As someone who is inspired to celebrate bike riding through photography, films, and occasionally writing, I see Freewheelin’ as a monument of creativity. It was aimed at an audience outside the experience of mountain biking while showing a truthful, celebratory version of the core riders at the time. Most of our media, whether printed or in films, succumbs to selling the products of the sport to the audience that is already committed. In my interview with Wolf Ruck, an Olympic athlete in an era of much lesser commercialization of the Olympics, he expressed dismay at corporate representations in sport. He was concerned with using film to translate the beauty of sport and its culture. For myself, that is what matters and I would like to see that matter to everyone else. Supporting the industry of cycling with our creativity is fine, but when our art and our commerce are indistinguishable I think there is a problem. Wolf Ruck’s Freewheelin’ inspires me with its pureness of intent. I hope discussions of this beautiful film will center on the intentions of its maker…And of course, socks, mustaches, fanny packs, chainstay length, riser bars, ders, trail poaching, toe straps, and high heels.

LINKS:

http://theradavist.com/2014/12/freewheelin-one-mtbs-first-videos/ http://www.thebicyclestory.com/2014/12/the-worlds-first-mountain-bike-film-probably/ http://www.thebicyclestory.com/2011/07/brian-vernor-santa-cruzs-adventurous-filmmaking-photo-taking-native-son/ http://trackosaurusrex.com/the-first-mountain-bike-video-ever-made/ http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/watch-first-known-mountain-bike-movie http://vernorfilm.tumblr.com/post/105041985258/hi-friends-this-has-been-a-long-time-coming-i http://www.bikehugger.com/post/view/freewheelin-mountain-bikes http://singletrackworld.com/2014/12/freewheelin/ http://www.chatderuelle.com/freewheelin/ http://girlbikelove.com/2014/12/freewheelin-film-wolf-ruck/ http://wayofthebicycle.tumblr.com/ https://www.facebook.com/RoskoCyclesInc/timeline http://www.teamdreambicyclingteam.com/page/2 http://pluradl.tumblr.com/ http://radpropaganda.org/2014/12/16/freewheelin/ http://www.bicikel.com/novice/11980/prvi_gorskokolesarski_film_freewheelin_na_voljo_za_ogled.html http://www.joelhynes.com/2014/12/watch-the-first-known-mountain-bike-movie/ Category Sports Licence Standard YouTube Licence

............ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.174.21 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]