Doc James

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#International Medical Products Price Guide.

James, since you seem to be the sole editor involved in adding "wholesale developing world" prices using the International Medical Products Price Guide and (retail) prices for the US using Drugs.com, I think you should explain how you arrived at the figures quoted in the articles. Particularly how you worked out a "per dose" or "per day" price or how you chose which formulation or tablet size or syrup strength to pick when you quoted the price. Were you using Supplier prices or Buyer prices or both? I think the figures given are all wrong and misleading and should be removed from all our articles. -- Colin°^Talk 18:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sure. This is based on the Defined Daily Dose of 1.5 gram (so three tablets).[1]

Have updated from 2014 to 2015 so changed "The wholesale cost in the developing world is between US$0.14 and US$0.52 per day." to "The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$0.40 per day as of 2015."

The updates were minor adjustments just going to show that medication prices do not generally make wild swings. The prior prices were useful. The current prices are a little more clear.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'll replay at the linked discussion. A major issue is that none of the prices I have examined match what our article claims. Not one. -- Colin°^Talk 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Could you please tell me what is bad with this source, and show me a "good" one? --Saidmann (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is just a Youtube video advertising Rezum. Why should we have a link to an advert? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Because a) there are no other web-images of comparable quality, and b) a source from the industry is not even frowned upon in scientific peer-reviewed publications. Why should we have different standards in this respect than high-quality journals? --Saidmann (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please cite these "classic," "reputable" sources for this image as depicting bipolar affective disorder so that we can have a robust discussion about your personal choice as to what is appropriate for depicting a medical condition.

They are listed in the talk history of the page in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Docjames,

Can you please give me your opinion on the article Bladder cancer.

a. What are the current limitations?

b. What needs improvement?

c. Other suggestions.

Thank you

--Astroketh (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Astroketh I think it looks good :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doc, can you or a peer have a look at Hard Palate#Palatal abscesses please? It appears the reference's translation (Romanian → English) missed the mark. Thanks! Ran0t0 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Ran0t0 sure let me see if I can find an EN ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Doc, I am not clear as to what your suggestions (i.e. " "Wondering if we should have a one to three paragraph overview for each of the three types in the body of the article. And than move each type to its own subpage") mean in terms of what I should do for the article Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma (MZL}. Do you suggest 1) placing a 1-3 paragraph overview at the beginning of the description for each MZL type; 2) a 1-3 paragraph overview at the start of the MZL article; or 3) have the MZL article overview the three subtypes and make each of the subtypes a separate article? Prior to my update and expansion of the Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, there were 4 Wikipedia articles on this: Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, MALT lymphoma, Nodal marginal zone B cell lymphoma, and Splenic marginal zone lymphoma. Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma and MALT lymphoma are the same clinical entity; the Nodal marginal zone B cell lymphoma consists of 3 lines and 3 citations, the newest of which is from 2008; and the Splenic marginal zone lymphoma article's latest citation is from 2006. These Marginal zone B-cell lymphomas have recently (2016) been reclassified into the three types, extranodal, nodal, and splenic, with the extranodal type having numerous subtypes. My idea was to reflect this update by combining the four separate articles into one. The advantage of having one article devoted to the three types is that it describes the similarities in their mechanisms of development and other features. If one article on MZL is preferred, I would combine the MALT lymphoma, nodal, and splenic articles into the MZL article. If an overview MZL article plus separate articles on each type is preferred, I would merge the Extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma part of MZL with the MALT article to make a asingle Extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma article, merge the Nodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma part of MZL with the nodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma article, and merge the splenic marginal zone B-cell lymphoma part of MZL with the splenic marginal lymphoma article (termed splenic marginal zone B-cell lymphoma). Please advise me on you view of on these questions. joflaher (talk) 1O:38, 29 November 2019 (Eastern Standard Time, USA)

User:joflaher I was thinking having something like the following. But your call...

Extranodal marginal zone lymphoma

Main article: Extranodal marginal zone lymphoma

"Most of the details go in the above."

EMZLs are a from of MZL in which malignant marginal zone B-cells initially infiltrate MALT tissues of the stomach (50-70% of all EMZL) or, less frequently, the esophagus, small intestine, large intestine, rectum, conjunctiva of the eye, nasal passages, pharynx, lung bronchi, vulva, vagina, skin, breast, thymus gland, meninges (i.e. membranes) that envelop the brain and spinal cord, or other organs.^[1][2] These EMZLs are classified into subtypes based on the organ(s) involved. For example, EMZL of the stomach is termed primary gastric EMZL. Regardless of subtype, these EMZLs share similar pathophysiological (i.e. disordered physiological processes that cause the disease) and histopathological (i.e. microscopic featues of diseased tissues). However, the subtypes differ in presentation, progression, severity, treatment, and instigating factors.

With maybe another paragraph or two overview but all the specifics in the subpage. And the same with the other two types.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you tell me what RM means? Wipur (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Wipur it means WP:RM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

everything in the titleWalidou47 (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

You need to add refs that support the content in question. You known that... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

I've been working on the Rabies vaccine article for a school project. I saw that some of the information included in the introduction isn't found anywhere else in the article. Would moving the short safety paragraph of the introduction to the actual safety subsection, then just putting a brief summary of that in the introduction be alright? Or is there a reason that the safety paragraph is in the introduction with invisible comments? Jmg613 (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply