| 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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. |
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 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
|
Cerebral perfusion pressure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
An editor removed content stating the range is too high here Thought you might want to verify. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks will look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay restored and adjusted some User:Jim1138 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for all the work you've done on the bipolar spectrum disorder articles. As for simplification of the manic lithograph caption, it's not exactly a drawing. Image might do—but that, like the word 'picture' is a bit redundant in a caption. I'm OK with 'drawing' since technical writing is so often enervated by straining at precision—this is, after all, an encyclopedia. — Neonorange (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- K thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the question of (directly) using images such as the following: http://webeye.ophth.uiowa.edu/eyeforum/atlas/pages/vogts-striae.htm in Wikipedia pages, so far as I know, the licensing information at the website webeye.ophth.uiowa.edu already allows use of such images in Wikipedia.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:American_medical_hashish(2).jpg
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en_US However, your guess might as good or better than my guess. Suslindisambiguator (talk)SuslindisambiguatorSuslindisambiguator (talk)
- User:Suslindisambiguator Wikipedia does not accept the NC ND licenses. We would need to request an exception to that. Will look into it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Invisalign edit for 3D scans, the website torontobraces.ca and the youtube videos seem to be one of the most detailed series of informative videos on the web regarding the Invisalign procedure. It was created by an Align Technology Speaker, a Top 1% Invisalign Provider (highest tier of Invisalign provider), a two-time published author in Invisalign's Case Gallery publications, and frequent contributor to orthodontic forums [1],[2], and [3]. There is a signed letter from the Eastern Director at Invisalign discussing the credentials and provides information about the 3D scanning: [4] Seems like a pretty good source, although secondary, because Align's website actually provides even less information.
Orthognathic (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are high quality secondary sources. Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Doc James,
I am writing to understand why you created a redirect from the "Mobetron" wiki page. I represent the company that manufactures this product.
I understand that Wiki is not intended primarily for product marketing. However, I also believe our product meets the Wiki criteria for being posted to the site.
Namely, this product is referenced in textbooks and peer reviewed journals.
He are examples to two books which describe the technical features of the Mobetron.
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-61779-015-7_3
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0471732877.emd313/abstract;jsessionid=4BF8FB0D9605F002EE50F625A4E3C38F.f04t04?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
We had authorized a unbiased third party to update the page with some of this information as well as post photos that we own the copyright to. Those were removed and then the entire
Other peer technologies that are similar to our product are included in Wikipedia such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberknife
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da_Vinci_Surgical_System
These are tradename healthcare products. Hence, please provide clarification and direction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddescioli (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of things.
- As you have a direct COI you need to state that on your user page per the message I left.
- We generally redirect brands to generics which is what we have done in your case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddescioli (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is against WP:TPO, which I suggest you read. I would hope you do not repeat the action. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have blocked your account for three days for insulting another editor. Please do not do it again. Repeatedly calling someone a "coward" is not appropriate[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Doc James, "Coward" presumably refers to the RfC at Talk:Noël Coward. I don't see how this can be construed as offensive except Coward, but that is explainable and from the comment SchroCat is not accusing Guy of cowardice. I think you've made a terrible mistake. BethNaught (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat
I honestly don't think that a 72 hr block is warranted. Please consider unblocking him, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See the previous section. It appears people are jumping to conclusions without knowing what the fuss has been about. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay thanks took a further look. Accept that explanation and unblocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your unblock edit summary of "Okay accept explanation" is totally unsatisfactory. While you might claim that your mistake was understandable under the circumstances, it was your mistake. The edit summary reads as if the person you mistakenly blocked invented an excuse which you graciously accepted. Block logs tarnish reputations and clarity is essential. Johnuniq (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I accepted the explanation. Using the heading that was used was fairly ambiguous. Repeatedly restoring it after being removed by multiple editors not the best form either. Editor is unblocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You made a mistake and blocked a good editor for no cause without first asking what it was all about. The "explanation" merely pointed out your mistake, and your unblock edit summary should have highlighted that the block was in error. Johnuniq (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In case you missed the ping Doc James, I am still waiting for a response to my comment to you on my talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|