This is a Wikipediauser 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.
Thanks Mathew Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked some questions and brought up a few points for your consideration. There's nothing important and it passes the GA criteria. (I'm just curious and I found out from your article that I've been having Scintillating scotoma, though not followed by a migraine. Only recently an eye doctor said I was having a "visual migraine" when I described it to him. I was dubious but the images in the article hit the nail on the head. Always wondered what that visual disturbance was!) MathewTownsend (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks will look in a few weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I passed Migrane as GA. Hope I didn't seem like an idiot with my questions. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Translators Without Borders Logo.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Translators Without Borders Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Egyptian art painting does show reflection symmetry I added on this article and I like to keep it there, I hope you are any good with symmetry as in part of Anatomy, thanks.--GoShow (...............) 13:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not sure what you are referring to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have only been using reviews since 2000 for new sources, but I haven't been deleting any questionable sources. I think there's a problem with trying to adhere to MEDMOS, though. The article has a dozen different devices, drugs, and methods, all with their own side effects -- both adverse and beneficial -- so the one section for adverse effects ended up with both good and bad side effects for hormonal contraceptives only. A lot of them are approved for their beneficial symptoms (from menstrual problems to acne) and the information about the lowered cancer risks is really important for women who hear about the increased cardiovascular risk.... I am just saying maybe the MEDMOS template doesn't apply so rigorously in this case. Cupco 11:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I'd be happy to collaborate on this. I'm very much in favour of providing clear, balanced information. One of the things I could do perhaps is try to help identify additional good quality review articles. Unfortunately, though, I don't currently have easy access to non-free content. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great this is a good place for sources [1]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that parts of the page at least need more thorough sourcing before GA review. I've backed off for the moment until hearing regulars' views on this (I'd prefer to collect a set of full article pdfs in one go). —MistyMorn (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree there are still sourcing issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doc, did you have a chance to see this notice I posted at WT:MED? The gist is that I feel that Sugarcube73 is degrading the quality of a number of WP:MEDICINE articles with POV-pushing and sourcing that does not meet WP:MEDRS, and I am looking for support from the WP:MED community to take action to stop further damage. I've already tried talking to Sugarcube73 directly, giving him stern warnings, working with him collegially, and taking some of his edits to WP:NPOVN (where two editors agreed with me that his edits violate WP:NPOV). Even after Sugarcube73 promised to read WP:MEDRS, he's making edits like this (entirely unsourced opinion), here (especially see the "Public relations" section and its sourcing), and this (more entirely unsourced opinion), among many others. I note that Yobol has also found some of Sugarcube73's edits to have POV and sourcing problems, as seen by Yobol's edits summaries here and here. I posted my concerns to WT:MED two days ago and I'm surprised to find no support. I'd really like your feedback--are my concerns unfounded, or poorly stated, or was WT:MED the wrong place to go? Or does WP:MEDICINE not really care about the kinds of edits Sugarcube73 is making? Please let me know--if Sugarcube73's edits don't concern you, that's fine, just tell me and I'll drop it and go work on something else, but if you agree with me that this is a problem, I'd like to know what we should do next. Thanks.... Zad68 12:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently away from home for the next few week traveling. Thus my limited response. Will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have concerns. Adding stuff like this [2] is in appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc, I'm glad to see my concerns are justified. Sad to say, there's plenty more like that diff you found. While you're at American Academy of Pediatrics, please do go back a little further in the edit history and take a look at, for one example, this edit followed by this edit that was used to help source it with a link to a foreskin-restoration.net chat forum posting... and again, this was after his promise to read WP:MEDRS. Zad68 18:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the second edit ref is completely inappropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've largely finished fixing the AAP article, please do keep looking at his edits in other areas. I'm of the opinion that 'action' is warranted, please let me know your thoughts. Have a good weekend... Zad68 19:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many of this editor's edits are clearly inappropriate. However, both those circumcision subarticles basically need a re-write from a MEDRS standpoint (they use way too many primary studies, way too many old studies, undue weight to non mainstream views, etc). Yobol (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you agree Yobol. Please let me know what the next step is here, I'll support as needed. Which 2 circumcision subarticles are you talking about? I can give it my best shot at bringing them in compliance with WP:MEDRS. Zad68 13:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of Circumcision and HIV and Medical analysis of circumcision. I'll see what I can do to help eventually, but I think both articles basically need a re-write to get it up to standards, and I'm not sure I have the time/patience to do that right now. I have multiple other articles I've been planning on working on (some for over a year now), and frankly, I'm not sure I care enough about the topic of circumcision to deal with the eventual issues that will arise when trying to improve those articles. (See WP:CGTW #17). I'd be happy to pitch in, though, if others from WP:MED will assist. Yobol (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Doc for having this conversation fill up your Talk page! Many points from WP:CGTW come to mind frequently as I edit... I've been considering writing down my own advice list. My approach to the thought behind WP:CGTW #17 is in its inverse, The Wikipedia Catch 22: "You will do your best editing work on articles you know and care nothing about." I don't really care about circumcision either, it's of no interest or relevance to me. But somehow my attention got drawn to the article, and I have to review what keeps me interested in editing Wikipedia in the first place. It makes me feel good to do valuable work--to think that I'm taking complicated, hard-to-access information and making it available to people who need it. Circumcision is a Wikipedia top-1000 article by views, with over a quarter-million views in the past month, more than Diabetes mellitus, more than Blood pressure, and it is in fact WP:MEDICINE's #1 most popular medical intervention article. I think WP:MED should be prioritizing it and its related articles.
But I'm interested to get involved in other areas too. Yobol, if you've got some WP:MED work you've been meaning to get, let me help, it would help you get your articles done, I'd get more experience, and the circumcision-related articles might then be able to benefit from your freed-up time. Maybe I should put my name down on the WP:MED list. Zad68 02:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to work though Medical analysis of circumcision today and wow... you're right, it's a real stinker. Ad-hoc fixing won't work, it really needs a ground-up rewrite. *Rolling up sleeves...*Zad68 20:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a complete train wreck. The fact that Circumcision is so popular is the only reason I kept it on my watchlist (I only showed up after someone asked for assistance at WT:MED, if memory serves). I've had 4 or 5 articles on my "to-do" list already. I'll add those circumcision pages to it as well, though no guarantees, and will add them to my watchlist. Yobol (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just having you Watchlist the articles would be a big help, thank you. From my (relatively brief) experience with the circ articles, all it takes is about 3 experienced editors reverting obviously bad edits and participating in Talk page discussions to keep things on track, and we've had at least three of the regulars go AWOL in the past months. Appreciate it. I'll give the medical analysis article a start, and again, if you have any other, non-foreskin related article work you feel like farming out, I'll do my best. Zad68 03:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yobol, Doc and anybody else who's interested, I reviewed the edits Sugarcube73 had made to Foreskin over the past few weeks, here are some highlights:
He added 8 new sources to the article, from publication dates: 1998, 1998, 1998, 1973, 1966, 1959, 1947, and... 1916. Yes, 1916, supporting new article content detailing the anatomy. Seven of the eight sources he added were from the anti-circumcision advocacy site CIRP.
...and I just can't help but point out that in this edit he called Masters & Johnson (1966) "antique." What does that make 1916?
One of the sources he added was a older, primary source--an anti-circumcision polemic--that he used to contradict a newer, secondary source... (What happened to his disgust for other editors who "favoured case reports and such instead of review articles"?)
and in this edit he moved sentences around to place an individual primary study from Sorrells 2007 ahead of the newer, reliable secondary source, the CPSBC 2009 statement...
...but even though he demonstrates he has no issue using very old sources, he removed previously-existing article content based on Szabo (2000) regarding how the foreskin is the probable pathway for HIV infection.
This was topped off with COI spam and unsourced content, among a few other issues.
I have undone all the content changes he did as there really wasn't a single worthwhile content improvement to be found in his edits. It appears that Sugarcube73 has pretty much stopped making edits to medical articles, but I wanted to record here some of his most... er, notable edits from that article in case he starts again. This sort of cleanup is time-consuming for me and it's not the kind of editing I want to be having to do. Zad68 03:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coventry
Just wanted to repeat to you my thanks to Jacob for the work the wikiproject does to improve medical articles, and to add that your report about the article and translation efforts was the most inspiring moment of the day. People could see how this work will lead to better health for millions of people. Thanks also for writing it up so clearly on the wiki! Hope you enjoy the rest of your visit to the UK. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James, it was a pleasure to meet you today. Your presentation was indeed inspiring. I'm sorry I could not stay for the afternoon session and to talk with you further, but I can already see how productive it was. Best wishes, Graham, Graham Colm (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks yes hoping we can build upon this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Buon viaggio!
Cheers James! Great meeting. Enjoy your travels! —MistyMorn (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
hopefully you can show me the right direction.
I am want to help the WikiProject Medicine translating articles from English to Portuguese, and vice versa. I tried to contact the lead person responsible for translation to Portuguese in the project, but the links did not seem to be taking me to right places.
Anyway, I studied medical sciences in Brazil and here in the US. I think I could provide valuable help.
Thank you very much in advance for any attention that you can give to this matter.
Hi, Thank you very much fro answering so promptly.
I tried to sign up at Translatorswithoutborders.org. However, it seems that they only accept translators with two year of professional experience. Well, I am professional in the medical field. My experience is not as a translator. Could I still help with the project?
Yes email either me or one of the two above and we will get you signed up. Many thanks for volunteering.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
I try to be very careful about putting references into every article I edit. If I missed doing this, please direct me to the article and I'll make certain it gets fixed with footnotes.
With regard to circumcision related articles, the previous editor who has resigned from Wikipedia, left them in a huge mess. He favoured case reports and such instead of review articles. They have far too many footnotes, in my opinion.
Sugarcube73 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you see case studies feel free to replace them with reviews if you can find ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Image size (map detail)
Hi, across wikipedia it is pretty normal to size maps (especially world maps) larger than the default so that people can readily see map detail. Misomucho (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Typically I leave them at default and than people can set the size as they like. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think you're right. For some reason when I looked through the history last it looked to me like those sections were added in one lump, but I see now that it looks like that wording has been worked on and evolved over some time. My mistake! I'll remove that tag right away. Thank you for catching that. Zujua (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It is important that we police ourselves and make sure that we do not infringe on others :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for translating this into Chinese. Are you a Chinese speaker? Cause although in general the article is quite good, I found lots of "western style" Chinese there, especially for it's grammar style. Also, it's unnecessary explain the medical terms in the article when translating, as they were already covered by the corresponding articles through the internal links.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand why it seemed so strange -- the article was translated from the simple english version rather than the original version, thus it has some explanation of terms...--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do I need to do if I want to translate one of those?--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the stats, either. I was mostly unhappy with the wording, "meat, chicken, ..." because, a) meat is a very broad category and includes pork, beef, chicken, etc. and, b) it's actually ALL poultry, not just chicken (e.g. duck, turkey, game hen, etc.); basically any bird (meat). (("pig" is also inappropriate in this context). Ildiko Santana (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree so should we change it to poultry? I was just paraphrasing the wording of the source which is not that good itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are the 5 main groups: (red) Meat, Poultry, Seafood (=Fish+Shellfish), Milk & Egg (products). I agree that the current wording needs improvement. I recommend using all 5 (and forget 'chicken'). See e.g. here or here. Ildiko Santana (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
James, you are our hero already. Deryck C. 10:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Methamphetamine
Hello Doc James, I've been working on our Meth mouth article recently and have it up for peer review now. This is the first medical article I've worked on, so I'm hoping for feedback about how I did with WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS issues. No problem if you're busy/not interested, but I'd be very grateful if you could weigh in. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Away from home right now. Would be good to have a picture. Maybe an organization would be willing to release one under a CC license. Will take a look more when I get home. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'll look around for something. I just saw the news, so I understand you are quite busy. Hope it all works out smoothly. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind reviewing my reversions of Marinerfan08? I see you've edited the page in the past. Thanks in advance... Ultra Venia (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your reversions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ed newsletter
Id like to invite you to write a short article for the wiki Education newsletter about your efforts with the Wikipedia journal. We target teachers and other academics so I think its worthwhile! We publish in a week. All you have to do is go to the "newsroom" and type out a paragraph or two and we will get it in! [3]Thelmadatter (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am away right now. When I return may be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're my hero, James! I couldn't be prouder of our community right now :) Accedietalk to me 04:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFL... Kudos James! Enjoy your travels—the both of you. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you fell afoul of the "intellectual rights" mafia. Give 'em hell! Be——Critical 17:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I hope all turns out okay in the end. Very happy to have the Wikimedia Foundations and the majority of the movement behind us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add me to those applauding you! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A beer for you!
For taking things head-on and doing so in the interest of Wikipedia and its community. Ocaasit | c 17:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pressing this
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
AWARDED For rejecting the idea that Wiki users are property of the site owner And rejecting private ownership of public domain material
After reading the New York Times article, I realize that the present lawsuit claim of tortious interference against you is based on the basic notion that we, as Wiki users - whether on Wikitravel, WikiHow, Encyclopedia Dramatica, countless other Wikis, or even here on Wikipedia - are in fact an asset, i.e. property, of the owners of the site, who can demand that we not be talked to, not told alternative outlets for our publication of material we choose to release under a CC license. For everyone on every Wiki in the world, we owe you a debt of gratitude for standing up to this unreasonable legal claim, in defense of our right to be free and unowned people. We did not join the free content movement to be somebody's property or to have our conversations subjected to somebody's censorship.
This comes on the heels of your previous efforts with the Rorschach test issue, where you stood up for the idea that yes, the public domain is really public domain, and a company can't extend its copyright forever just by doing a little self-serving moralizing. Wnt (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; that's good work on the travel wiki. I hope you and Mr Holliday are getting all you need from the foundation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James, after a long period of relative dormancy, I'm itching to take malaria to the "next level". Would appreciate it if you could have a look at my responses to your comments at the GAN, and perhaps indicate if you're satisfied with the changes I've made. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look in a few weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've become a WikiHero!
All I want to say is be strong and don't back down! You're a WikiHero! 134.241.58.251 (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
