Jump to content

User talk:Doc James

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ReferenceBot (talk | contribs) at 00:27, 19 February 2017 (Bot: Notice of potential reference breaking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


 Translation
Main page		 Those Involved
(sign up)		 Newsletter 


Indefinitely blocking me

Sizeofint was indefinitely blocked for using a second account (for the sake of privacy, I'm not going to link to it here) which he acknowledges is his; however, the checkuser that blocked him provided no evidence of any wrongdoing and hasn't even stated how he violated the WP:SOCKING policy.

If his block isn't repealed by the checkuser, I assume he will appeal his block to ARBCOM. Assuming that happens, if neither the checkuser who blocked him nor ARBCOM provides evidence of the two accounts interacting in a manner that violates WP:SOCK##Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts AND his block is upheld by both entities, I'm going to permanently retire from editing Wikipedia on principle. I intend to make this clear to ARBCOM if a second appeal of his block is necessary.

To make it perfectly clear how serious I am about this and to enforce my permanent absence, I intend to ask every admin in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks to indefinitely WP:BLOCKME; however, I'd prefer to be blocked by an admin that I know and trust. You are the first person who comes to mind who meets those criteria. So, I'm asking you: if it comes down to it and I ask you to follow through, will you indefinitely block me? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi, Seppi. I was alarmed by your message here, and I tracked down what is going on. Please don't do anything rash. In particular, please wait and see what ArbCom says about it. There are two possibilities that I can see: violation of the socking policy, or just a careless but good-faith mixing of two accounts, sort of like editing while logged out. I kinda think that it's the latter, and this is the sort of thing that can be worked out via an appeal. Please understand that the indefinite block of Sizeofint is not the same thing as an infinite block. The block can be lifted any time if ArbCom determines that whatever happened is not going to happen again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah User:Seppi333 we are not there yet. I have of course commended on Sizeofint talk page. I am currently on holidays. One is not supposed to out someone unless their is clear evidence they are causing harm. One is allowed to have alternate accounts (of which I know a few other medical editors have). The work I have seen of User:Bbb23 has typically been reasonable. Bbb23 can you please email the evidence of harm you have on User:Sizeofint? ( I will ask User:Sizeofint for permission on their talk page for you to send it to me). Waiting for a night bus to Banaue Rice Terraces so will be on for the next few hours but than off line probably for a few days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James and Tryptofish: I'm sorry if I alarmed you. This was an unintended consequence of my intended goal: to enter into a non-cooperative game with a credible threat in which one of two outcomes (Sizeofint being unblocked or presented with the evidence against him) was the Nash equilibrium. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I'm very happy that it worked out. My main concern here was that I did not want you to become collateral damage. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After an independent review I have unblocked both accounts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Thank you for taking the time to conduct a review of the block; I really do appreciate that you took the time to review the case and set things right. While I'm obviously not privy to the details, on the face of it, this block appeared to be a gross misuse of admin tools which completely ignored procedural due process; in particular, if Sizeofint's block was to remain upheld, he has a right to know what he did wrong and the evidence that supports that finding. If he had not been unblocked, I would not have continued to edit Wikipedia if neither of those things was disclosed publicly, or at least privately to him. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sizeofint made the error of editing the same article with two accounts. Thus Bbb23 measure is a common step. One needs to be super super careful with alt accounts.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review articles

Thank you for the notification, it was helpful. How do you find review articles - I am interested in psychiatry, psychology and management. Thank you for pointing out the citation feature in edit box, it is a relief. Is there any tools wiki/off-wiki that helps to format citations for articles. Kindly do reply about review articles and how can it be searched in google, with example or any other previous diffs given as advise is good.117.213.17.1 (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. Travelling. There is the citoid tool in the left panel that can also help with formatting diffs.
To find reviews I generally use pubmed.com and on the left limit the search to "review articles". Works about 95% of the time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chloramphenicol

Thanks for your edit on chloramphenicol. Spoke to my hospital pharmacist due to conflicting online information and found to my surprise that we are able to purchase it here in the US. Was less expensive than I would have suspected as well. You corrected some misinformation in my brain and I'm not sure that there is a kinder act as far as I can see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick1701 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maverick1701 no worries. This is one of the joys of editing Wikipedia. I have learned a great deal during my time here aswell :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision and HIV

James --the article is a mess. It is poorly organized, written in unnecessary technical jargon, and contradictory. Would you be willing to edit if I do a new version in a sandbox? Peter Millard, MD, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to begin editing the main article live. This will give the wider community an opportunity to provide feedback. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Nausea

Sometimes I come across an editor who has a proprietary interest in an article, and insists that the way they have composed the article's prose is sacrosanct. Often, that editor's prose is nonstandard or nonencyclopedic, sometimes because their first language is other than English. I don't like to get into edit conflicts over prose, but your prose and wording choices are not helpful to Wikipedia, Doc. One sign of unhelpful reverts by English-language learners is that they choose to explain their reversion of my work with an edit summary which does not give a specific justification for what they have done. You have given the edit summary of "adjusted." You reverted nearly all of my edit, which took me over an hour to complete. Writing you this message is taking another hour I will never get back.

My first question is why you think the word "nauseate" is a noun? It's a verb. "Nauseate" is not a synonym or cognate for "nauseant," and its use in such a context is confusing to the reader, and a sign of diminished literacy in its editor. The fact that you have reverted my correction of your prose to your incorrect form is disturbing to me. Wikipedia does not need your insistence on incorrect form, either. Most people reading Wikipedia are native English speakers, and will find your version of English prose to be an impediment, slowing them down, and reducing comprehension. I correct this type of prose every day on Wikipedia. It is perfectly fine to write bad prose one time, so that others may correct it. The Russians, Germans, Hispanics, French and others let my edits stand, but I did have a problem with one editor in Delhi. Only very rarely does an editor "stand up" for their substandard prose and incorrect usage.

My second question is why you have reverted my rewording of "some serious causes do occur" to "some serious conditions are associated with nausea." "Some serious causes do occur" is not ungrammatical; it contains neither spelling nor punctuation errors; however, it is vague and appears to be the wording of a nonfluent English writer. I could take it upon myself to write Wikipedia articles for non-English Wikipedias, but, like you, my writing would at times be awkward and nonidiomatic. What I would never consider doing, though, is insisting that my non-native prose had precedence over a native speaker's idiomatic version. Do you believe that you are going to prevail against the entirety of English Wikipedia? You don't own this article, and I can tell that you are not a medical professional, and that you rarely read medical journals in English. For instance, you insist on "surgical problems" over "surgical complications." Really?

Another question is why you have reverted my re-ordering of a list of potentially serious causes of nausea. The list was a random, "dog's breakfast" collection of possible causes. I grouped the list by systems, for comprehensibility, with the digestive system in sequential order (which is standard practice), and with surgical complications last, as they are due to another person, and you reverted to your version. Your version also includes the phrase, "as a sign of carbon monoxide poison," instead of "carbon monoxide poisoning," which is simply terrible prose form, being redundant (we know nausea is a sign), and while in your country, the expression "carbon monoxide poison" may be standard, that is never how English-speakers in English-speaking countries, within or outside of the medical profession, express the term.

I am tempted to revert your entire reversion of my work, but in Wikipedia we discuss things. Please respond with a cogent argument explaining why each of your reversions should stand. Note that your non-native speaker status is, to me, not an automatic impediment to editing English Wikipedia. Many excellent articles here are in fact written mostly by non-native speakers with an fine ear for idiomatic English. The difference is in knowing one's limitations, and not exceeding them.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure so:
Why not mention food poisoning as a cause?
Why abbreviate intracranial pressure as ICP without spelling it out first?
We tend to keep headings shorter and thus the removal of "serious conditions associated with nausea"
Why not specifically mention chemotherapy?
Connection is really bad right now. Agree with you on "nauseate" and removed it.
Gallstones in and of themselves do not really cause outside of biliary colic so trimmed that one. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help

Music of Adelaide

Your from Canada and your editing a page about Music in Adelaide? Mind your own business and leave Adelaide to people from Adelaide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yep 001 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. I protected the page in question following a request. Appears it likely needs protection for even longer. Looking more closely I am seeing a lot of socks including the account above and this has been going on for months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 18 February

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) 00:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&oldid=766230161"