User talk:Doc James

We have an offline version of our healthcare content. Download the app and access all this content when there's no Internet. (other languages)

 Translation
Main page Those Involved
(sign up) Newsletter 

Please click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online. Regarding the "menopause" article I see that you have reverted my addition to the "menopause" article regarding the prospective treatment of menopause using platelet-rich plasma. Could you please clarify to me exactly what was wrong with the section per WP:MEDRS? I am afraid that I am not particularly familiar with that particular guideline, as I rarely edit medical articles except for minor grammatical and formatting changes and corrections. To the best of my knowledge, the New Scientist magazine, while not a medical journal or textbook, is a fairly reliable secondary source that does not (generally) publish sensationalist stories or distort the truth of the subjects which it covers (with the possible exception of the criticism mentioned in its Wikipedia article). 114.75.119.210 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC) This edit is based on popular press. One would require a high quality review article for this sort of controversial stuff per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I see. Thank you for clarifying. I will not re-add the section unless I find a reliable medical source. 114.75.119.210 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I am the same person who posted the above message. I have an additional question: would be the information that I added in the reverted edit be useful on any other article with the source that I used? 114.75.202.140 (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC) No. For health information we require really good sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC) I see. Thank you for the information. Have a good day. 114.75.202.140 (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Mail Hi sir, have you checked my mail? --Josephpaulkochi (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Will do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Another encounter Doc, I ran into another user that reminds me a lot of you. Academic bravado, only his interpretation of facts was correct, Only room for discussion was to appropriate his right-ness and establish his way of doing, reinterpreting sources to his own agenda, and ultimately hijacking pages and protecting them like little pet projects. Have you noticed that I never contributed to single page you watch like a hawk since our last encounter? I even told him about you in hopes that he'd relax. But no, because I called him uninformed, and criticized his little pet social-constructionism, he played his games. He forced me to produce resources supporting my claims in contributions. So I would. Then he would all of a sudden just magically have the exact obscure source I produced, and would find a different passage from it to counter my point. The only semblance of any "willingness to contribute" was when he professed to want to improve wikipedia. But, if that were true, then he would have used the sources (that he initially concealed from that he had) to dialogue with me constructively, and make his own improvements. But no, all he wanted to do was revert my edits and argument with my sources. Sure, he'll tell you I couldn't produce and viable resources (Just like you did to me on the CBT page 3 years ago), but he can only say that if he first argues a different interpretation, whether he knows or not that that's what he's doing. Doc, if you came to me and said, "Urstadt, I got this 18-year old kid telling me that hemp paper is stronger that regular paper. He said he tried to tell you that and you told him he was wrong. So he tells me that he told you, Urstadt, the resource and citation supporting his claim." And Doc, let's pretend that's exactly how it happened. The 18-year old kid produced a valid source. Well, if I don't want to look like a you know what, I have to point to different parts of the source material that somehow obscure the certainty of the passage the 18-year old showed me. Now Doc, if I do that, I am clearly not trying to help this kid improve an article! I am clearly trying to thwart it? Now, why would I do that, Doc? Well, here are the possibilities: I am prejudice against hemp and marijuana I am envious that a punk kid knew more than me I want to dictate what is on certain pages that I have subconsciously adopted as my mini-projects I rule over I have a personality disorder, and am therefore likely unmarried, and probably not very well liked by peers and co-workers. So, what am I to conclude? Well, if I want to show good faith, then there is a 5th possibility: I over-analyze and destructively criticize everything because my own intellect gets in the way of the very thing I am trying to use it for. I mean, that's not real far off as a possibility. This is why editors sometimes have to take writers' work away from them. It's typically why they don't have many real relationships. Not because there is anything wrong with him: but rather, because nothing is ever good enough for them. That is seriously the plight of many intellects. They just don't know how to get out of their own walkety-the-plank way. Do you know the solution for this type of intellect? Meaning, solution for coping with this insidious way of being? Tyrannical control. The intellect of this burdening requires tyrannical control over everything in their (real or virtual) environment because of the utter lack of control upstairs, and the greater lack of control of the fallout from it. Oh no, I couldn't be right (even though I was), because then that would mean that his intellectual burdening is once again getting in his way and he would have to face that. But, if I am wrong, and he is right, then he is not falling victim to his own intellectual interruptions/disruptions. No, instead all that is happening is that he was in control and validated that he is still ok for another day. I have watched your edits for three years. Not round the clock, but I wish I could've. I have been watching this guy's since my first run-in with him shortly after my last with you. The level of control you two require, my Good-Padlock, I thought for a moment you two were the same. I swear you two could be twins. Oh, and my absolute favorite part is that you both are so walkety-the-plank johnny on the spot to go and done cite wiki policy all rickety-tick. Too bad there is no policy for disguised hijacking on wikipedia. Or disguised pet-project-ing. There are people in this world who have now been held back from knowing what the information I have studied has to offer them. You do it on the CBT and EMDR page. Biogeographist does it on the now deleted Ontological Hermeneutics page (oh, you can bet I was never going to let him do to that page what he tried to do and has done elsewhere. That was the best thing I ever wrote as a teenager. I lied right lickety-split to get that page deleted and it was gone in less than two hours), and Omnipaedista does it on many philosophy pages. (Now, of course, I tried to get Omnipaedista to go over to the Ontological Hermeneutics page, given his background, to convince other admins that it was a hoax (as I was lying that it was). My thinking, Doc, was that his background would cause him to come and disagree that it was hoax. The truth be told, since he's been monitoring the Hermeneutics page for like 4 plus years, he should've known that I was lying about the Ontological hermeneutics page being a hoax. Especially because he had made several improvements to the article! Granted they were clerical, but you gotta read the yarpping page to do it! He never once challenged anything for almost 4 years on that. All of a sudden, Biogeographist comes in and stirs waves, and never Omni is telling me on his talk page that it's a hoax, and regurgitating Bio's propaganda (which I will probably get from you in your response to this!). Have you ever heard of the file drawer effect in research and peer-review publishing? Of course you, Doc. That's kind of what this is like here. And I sincerely apologize that this sounds like an attack. I am not trying to attack anyone. Please, show good faith, and chalk my horrible wordsmithing up to just that: bad wordsmithing when trying to merely get a point (and some kind of an argument for said point) across. And that point is this: Wikipedia has an underground oligarchy creating their own intellectual and cultural Czar. By the way, Doc, how are you courses going? Got any courses coming up in the next little bit that you're particularly looking forward to, not looking forward to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urstadt (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Per "He forced me to produce resources supporting my claims in contributions." Yes this is a foundation of Wikipedia. Once sources are produced one can than discuss what they mean and how they should be balanced with the rest of the literature on a topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Ketamine Hello, I just noticed you reverted my correction in the article (the German common name being written with a capital first letter) without any reason given. In German, all nouns are written with a capital first letter; this includes names of places, animals, plants, substances etc.. Writing names with a capital first letter is german orthography, just as using Umläute (such as ä, ö, ü) or transliterating them as "ae, oe, ue". Should you be in doubt about this, you could consult e. g. the german Wikipedia page; even not speaking german, one can see that Ketamin as such is always written with a capital K. Cheers,--78.43.65.214 (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Ah yes. I see that you are correct and have reverted myself. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Question about wording You recently changed the word "infants" to "babies" in a section that I have been working on [1] Why did you do that? Gandydancer (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Having been working on that article aswell off and on for years. IMO "newborn baby" is perfectly reasonable. "Newborn infant" is fine aswell. Do you prefer one over the other? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Yes, you and I are the leading editors of that article. Doc, I do appreciate it when you improve my edits, as is frequently the case, however you also frequently make inconsequential changes in my wording, for instance here where I changed "neonate" to infant to make the article more reader friendly and you changed my "infants" wording to babies. This is irritating and frustrating for me. I've only just recently come back to editing a few medical pages after leaving them a few years ago when I left because it was no longer enjoyable and I'd like to continue to edit with some degree of enjoyment. Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC) It was not meant as a slight. While not a big deal I still consider it an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC) I know you did not mean it as a slight and if it happened only this one time it would in fact not be a big deal. In this case both words are equal or almost equal; certainly if one looks at literature they are both used interchangeably. Sometimes I like baby best and other times infant seems a better choice. In this case I liked infant the best. You just don't seem to get that it is rude and thoughtless to make word changes in cases such as this. Gandydancer (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC) This is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia. We all get what we write edited by others. If you really prefer infant feel free to restore that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Heart failure Hello Doc James, just wanted to ask if this source is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia? Just wondering because you removed it here. Thanks. (120.144.154.144 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)) Yes that blog is generally viewed as not acceptable. Expecially when other better sources are avaliable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks Doc James. (120.144.154.144 (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)) Reference templates Hi Doc! You reverted my edits to the references in chlorine-releasing compounds, and asked why I made them. I had removed them because the {{cite ...}} templates don't seem to provide any advantage, only disadvantages: Their source code is usually twice as long (or more) than that of the plain <ref>..</ref> without templates. The source with templates is almost unreadable, making it MUCH harder to edit and reuse in the article. They cannot be created or fixed without knowledge of the template and all its variants and fields; which restricts editing of references to a small set of editors. They generate cryptic journal refs like "21(3), 12" instead of "volume 21, issue 3, page 231". (The cryptic format is understood by academics but not by general raders. It was developed by editors of academic journals, a couple centuries ago, to save paper; which is obviously not an issue in online documents like wikipedia articles. Note that the online sites of many journals, like this one, now use the full form on the article header.) They are inflexible, as they assume that a reference has a definite set of fields with definite meanings. For all those reasons, I don't use those templates, and I remove them whenever I have to edit references. I also spell out the full journal name, instead of using the academic abbreviations, and generally try to make the entry more readable and accurate if I can. I won't fight to put my edits back, but please look at the two versions, and consider: which one is better, for readers and for editors? Sincerely, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) User:Jorge Stolfi Two things. First of all, please read (and follow) WP:CITEVAR. It is not OK to unilaterally go through an article and change the reference style. ("Style warrioring" is a real problem here - for example using English or US spellings, or BC/AD vs BCE/CE and the community came to a way to kill these a long time ago -- don't change a style thing from X to Y without getting prior consensus... and if you go ahead and do it anyway, understand that you are likely to be reverted and you will have almost no chance of "winning" the subsequent debate. Such debates can become huge time sucks here. So we do everything we can to kill them before they become forest fires) Second, if you want to talk about changing template:cite journal or having that template deleted, the place to do that would be its talk page - a centralized discussion, instead of trying to change this article by article. (your chance of succeeding there is tiny, but that is the place to try) That's my advice, and I hope you follow it. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC) The use of citation templates is optional, and there is the greater directive of ignoring rules (which are made by a few editors who enjoy making rules) when that produces a better article; which is the case here.br/>In fact, that "rule" that you refer to does not prohibit changing the style of individual references in text that one is heavily editing for other substantive reasons (which is the case here). It is clearly meant to discourage editing an article solely to change its style, including the style of references -- either way. In fact, I have seen that happen to several of my articles, when someone else edited all my references to add those damn {{cite }} templates, or &nbsp; between numbers and units, etc.. As for debating that issue on the template's talk page: years ago I complained about them in that and other forums, including the "editability" initiative of several years ago. But it is totally pointless, because the people who have to decide whether and how a template should be used are the same people who created the template; and they obviously enjoy doing that, and want it to be used. So it is not surprising that the "editability" initiative produced zero concrete results... PS. DocJames, I see now that you did not just revert the references, but also (for the second time) reverted all my edits to the text itself. Sorry, but I do feel that those edits made the head section much better. Please restore them, or improve that section futher. (BTW, note that Wikipedia is not the place to quote price information, since it is too ephemeral. Certainly not in the head section. Note that I kept that information in the body of the article. Note also that the form of usage depends on the product; and that the price is for chloramine-T, not chloramine -- two very different products.) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC) As you will. You are beating your head against the wall and will likely end up blocked, and for increasingly longer period of time. We do include price information, and in the lead. This has been discussed at WT:MED and is discussed at WP:MEDMOS. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Articles do not "belong" to projects, and projects do not have the right to impose style rules. As for being blocked: I have been an editor since 2004, contributed more than a thousand articles, etc.. I have never been blocked, and once I was offered an admin position (that I declined). So I know how the system works (and fails to), thank you. All I can do (and I feel must do) is try to convince editors, one at a time -- whether that works or not. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Cite templates are fairly standard and moving the article to another style is not something I support. Per the talk page some of what you added was unreferenced. Other bits were based on really old sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC) observation Dear Doc James you cannot hurl accusations of a paid editors for Angelique Rockas when there is no need for proving what was produced. If you are way on holiday have you read the material? Making accusations of payment constiture libel. Template:Signed Nescu23