User talk:Doc James: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:47, 6 November 2010

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

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 .

Consider this!

Jfdwolff would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Jfdwolff to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jmh649. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

talkbacks

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Leevanjackson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Ronk01's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Owain.davies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Image

I think I remember you asked for the deletion of several medical images with copyright problems a few months ago. I have a similar problem with an image, and I am not sure about how to procceed. Image is: File:PET scan Parkinson's Disease.jpg. Description states that it was created by NASA. However while it appears in a document by NASA at no point it is said that it was created by them. In addition it seems an internal document for a lection. Moreover I do not think that NASA is interested in performing PET scans to parkinson's disease patients. I participated in a discussion with a similar image 2 years ago about AD: See here. For the moment I am going to eliminate image from article. Thanks in advance.--Garrondo (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found the following notice in the index of the tutorial from where the image was taken:I GET MANY REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION TO USE ILLUSTRATIONS FROM THE TUTORIAL, OR ACTUAL COPIES THEREOF. ABOUT 95% OF THOSE YOU SEE WERE EXTRACTED OFF THE INTERNET (AND I HAVE INEXACT RECORDS OF THEIR SOURCE); THE OTHER 5% CAME FROM MY PERSONAL COLLECTION WHICH I HAVE SINCE GIVEN AWAY. I AM THEREFORE UNABLE TO FILL ANY REQUESTS INCLUDING PERMISSIONS, SO PLEASE DON'T SEND ANY.: So now it is clear that it is a copyright infrigement.--Garrondo (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any hints on how to act regarding WP commons?--Garrondo (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some page one post this sort of thing on. I do not remember again where it is. Will look when I am home in a couple of days. Unless you find it first :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by myself. Thanks. I was not sure if it had to be done at commons or WP.--Garrondo (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most photo stuff takes place at commons except for fair us which are uploaded only to Wikipedia and not commons.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Seed

Hello, I see that you deleted my posting to the requested articles. I was wondering why I can't get a second opinion and see if someone else would look at the subject and see if they think it is notable? You say Pre-Seed is just a Hydroxyethylcellulose based lubricant. It says in the KY Jelly article that it is a hydroxyethylcellulose based lubricant, yet it has it's own article. Why not have the generic name for that? Pre-Seed may not be as well known as KY Jelly or Astroglide, but it is not intended for the same use. It is designed to be fertility friendly, and it is the only lubricant that is safe for trying to conceive. It has been noted in numerous studies, as well as best selling fertility books and is sold all over the world. There are many articles on Wikipedia that reference Toni Weschler's book "Taking Charge of Your Fertility", and in that book Pre-Seed is recommended as the vaginal moisturizer to use. So in the fertility world, it is a notable subject. Why can't I put a post in the requested articles section and get a second opinion? Darb8033 (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask over at WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the structure of a sub talk page after it has been referred to.

There is a guideline that says that we should not change a comment after someone responded to it. The spirit of that guideline suggests that you should not change the structure of a sub talk page after several references were made to it. In this particular case, the effect was not negligible since there was many references to a section and you moved an entire different section into it. Moreover, in doing so, you removed an important distinction between the definitions of a term in dictionaries and encyclopedia and the uses of the term in practice. Please, bring back the structure of the sub talk page to its original state. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that there was not references in that section. However it was exactly the same as the section above. Thus I combined the two adding content to a section that should have never been created in the first place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in the talk page made no sense after your edits. This is the main reason why one should not edit any part of talk pages after it was commented upon. So, if only for this reason, please undo your modifications. And, no, it was not the same at all after your edits. Perhaps you did not see the difference between definitions of a term in dictionaries and its uses in practice. The definitions appear in tertiary sources whereas the uses of a term can appear in secondary sources. It is an important distinction. For this reason also, please undo your modifications. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments did not make sense before hand either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they did not made sense to you. You are the only one that can tell that. That's not an excuse. You should not have changed the context of these comments. If you did not understand them, you should have asked. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asystole

Sorry for overloading you with image requests but you are the only health care professorial that does active wiki work. I think you should try to hunt down a asystole ECG strip because the current ones are super low resolution. I think all the super high resolution ECGs I see on EMS blogs are spoiling me :P Peter.C • talk

Do you want real asystole, or "the lead got unhooked" asystole? There's a significant difference in the waveform (or, more appropriately, in the manner in which a waveform is lacking.) It's pretty rare for a 12 lead to be hooked up to an asystolic patient, so I assume you mean those optional printouts that some MED units have. Ronk01 talk 02:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice to have both versions of it. Also since it is rare to find a asystolic heart beat it is more important to have a version of that no matter what. And yes, I mean the printout. Peter.C • talk 02:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure will grab one the next time I see it. We get this fairly regularly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of NPOV-title and NPOV-section tags

Just to inform you that I intend to take administrative actions with regard to your removal of the NPOV tags in the TM page while there was an active discussion regarding these related disputes. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edith your actions are becoming disruptive. There is no support for your proposal outside of practitioners of TM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought this to the Incident notice board [1]. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trauma symptoms

Hello hello, I was wondering if trauma symptoms/physiologic response should be added to Trauma (medicine). I coulda sworn their was a section on it a while ago. I have 6 pages of physiologic responses just waiting to be used in the article (11 if you count the 5 pages on shock). Should I add the section back? Peter.C • talk 01:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to physiological response that should be under mechanism rather than signs and symptoms.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, by mechanism you mean "Causes and risk factors", right? Peter.C • talk 13:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By mechanisms | mean pathophysiology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I create a section for that or add on to an existing section. Sorry for all the stupid question but since trauma is a heavily read article I don't want to get any thing wrong. Peter.C • talk 15:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncapitalise, please

Hi. I think it takes an administrator to change the title of an article. Will you please un-capitalise all words except the first one in the title of Drug Discovery and Development of Melatonin Receptor Agonists? (The title may well need changing to something else. Meanwhile the excess capital letters begone!) Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's Discovery and development of melatonin receptor agonists? I can start it with "Drug" if you like, I just thought this was more concise. (Sorry for butting in.) Anthony (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anthony. Concise it ain't in any case. I wonder if it just couldn't be a part of Melatonin receptor? Haven't studied them both enuff yet. I also wonder if Melatonin receptor 1A, Melatonin receptor 1B and Melatonin receptor 1C need each their own articles... --Hordaland (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's way beyond my ken. Anthony (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SCIIT Page

Hi Jmh649,

Just checking in on our discussion concerning the Short Immune Induction Therapy page, considering the references that I provided. Any word yet?

Tractatus Philosophicus (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few more days :-)--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag you placed in Jan 2010

Hi Doc, In Jan 2010 you left a NPOV tag here [[2]] but didn't specify on the talk page what your specific concerns were. Can you please do this now so that the concerns can be discussed and addressed and the tag removed? Or it may be that over the past 10 months since you posted the tag the issue has been resolved, in which case you could simply remove the tag. In either case, your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 ::Edith your actions are becoming disruptive. There is no support for your proposal outside of practitioners of TM. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 14:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
+::: I have brought this to the Incident notice board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=395200491]. [[User:Edith Sirius Lee 2|Edith Sirius Lee]] ([[User talk:Edith Sirius Lee 2|talk]]) 17:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 == Trauma symptoms ==