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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.
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.... Zad6812:19, 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. Zad6818:41, 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... Zad6819:37, 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. Zad6813:02, 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. Zad6802:33, 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. Zad6803:01, 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. Zad6803:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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
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]
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! [2]Thelmadatter (talk) 07:44, 8 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]
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]
I have just been reading up on the case, and wanted to drop by to offer my support, for what it's worth.
It appears to be a bullying attempt to prevent people from actually using the CC license. If content cannot be forked, the CC license would lose a lot of its value. I know that it's not fun being in the middle of a legal battle, but thank you persisting with this. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 15 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]
Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Talk:Circumcision#Another_ref. Message added 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The headers of the section do not convey prevelence limits. Until they do, the hair loss side effect is not less frequent than a reader expect to be informed about at that section. Additionally, 256 known incidents out of max 77,000,000 head scans per year is more than 3 cases per million, which is about the same frequency as death from iodine. The latter is reported at the same section indicating that such freqencies are covered in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.35.63.145 (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The weight is disclosed in the detailed text, hence there isn't a false impression of weight that is not supported, hence no undue weight. As I wrote above, the section is not limited by a threshold frequency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.35.63.249 (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doc, I hope that all is well with you. I was wondering if you could get this paper for me please? It was previously freely available as full text and I intended to use it for the ADHD article. It has some important information on a unique neuropsychological profile present in ADHD young people who have a high IQ that can be misdiagnosed on cognitive testing and I thought it would be of value for our readers in the diagnosis section of the ADHD article. If you are too busy, it can wait, no major rush. Thanks.--MrADHD | T@1k?16:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to help the WikiProject Medicine translating articles from English to Croatian. Roberta F., the lead integrator of Croatian
Wikiproject medicine suggested to contact you, and ask you how to join the WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force. I tried to contact Enrique Cavallito on his Translators Without Borders e-mail, but he did not answered me. Maybe this mail is no longer active.
I'm a physician, I graduated in Italy at Faculty of Medicine of Trieste, have also a Ph.D in medical biochemistry. Actually, I
write and edit the articles of basic biochemistry at Croatian wikipedia.
My native language is Croatian, but I'm fluent in Italian and quite good in English.
I think I could provide valuable help in translation from English to Croatian and from Italian to Croatian.
