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 Neurosteroids (talk | contribs) at 12:37, 3 September 2019 (→Allopregnanolone: new section). 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 


13 years

(Selected comments copied from Jimbotalk, where they are about to get be removed by the 3-day archiving)

On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against blind people. See phabricator T6845. This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit.

In particular, National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.

So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done") and a schedule for solving this?

And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks the name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

Regarding hiring someone else to fix this, I would very much like the idea to be given careful consideration rather than being dismissed out of hand. The WMF is great at running an encyclopedia. Nobody else, anywhere on earth, even comes close. However, running an encyclopedia does not magically confer the ability to create high-quality software, and the WMF has a pretty dismal track record in this area (Examples: Visual Editor, Flow, 13 years of failing to making this obvious but boring improvement to accommodate blind people.) I realize that this will anger some people, but why should it? Olympic-level athletes don't get angry when you tell them that their athletic ability does not magically confer the ability to repair automobiles or do astronomy.

Comments from the phabricator page:

  • "This doesn't just effect addition of external links, it also prevents new users from registering, requiring them to use ACC to request an account."
  • "There is no one currently assigned to this, so no one is taking it upon him to fix this at this moment. It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for, so it's not likely to be prioritized from that end."
  • The only thing stopping us from having an audio captcha is that nobody's put the work into implementing it yet." --Source: Chief MediaWiki developer as of 2008
  • "So the question is why has work not been put aside to fix an issue of recognised high importance that will, 13 years after first being raised, resolve an issue that results in us discriminating against people who are (in many jurisdictions) a legally protected minority?"

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon quoted from the phabricator page: It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for. This is likely not to be true. I realise the post was likely referring to teams on the technical side, but... if there is a mandate under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or subsequent legislation, then there is a team with responsibility at the WMF, its legal team (ping Interim General Counsel TSebro_(WMF)). There is also responsibility for legal compliance that goes to the CEO / ED (ping Katherine (WMF)) and ultimately, if management does not ensure compliance, to the Board (ping community trustees Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm). If putting into effect the excellent and appropriate 2006 non-discrimination principles stated by the Board or doing the right thing are not a sufficient motivators after such a long time, perhaps legal obligation / potential liability is a reason for action? I am assuming that everyone wants National Federation of the Blind v. WMF to remain a redlink, rather than becoming a sequel to National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.? 13 years without solving an issue like this – and one the Chief Mediawiki Developer recognised as only needing people to do the necessary work (according to Guy's phabricator page quotes) – sounds indefensible. As Churchill would have said: "Action, this day." EdChem (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly something that needs to be fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, then you should hire developers to work on it. Something the foundation has never prioritized. Ask VolkerE, he has been asking for years internally. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is certainly more than an "English Wikipedia" challenge - and if the Board of Directors think this is important, let your CEO know. — xaosflux Talk 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the board directs the WMF to fix this, might I request that it be done openly and transparently? I know how developers and their managers think, and there is a strong tendency to work on something like this without telling anyone, throw the result over the wall, then get all upset when the users reject your solution. The right way to do this is to first decide on the requirements (for those who aren't software developers, "requirements" is a code word for "before we start, we need to decide what 'done' means and how we will determine whether we are done"), then let me and other volunteers with skills in this area criticize and improve the requirements. You have a great resource in the form of volunteers like me. It would be stupid to waste that free resource. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jimbo and Doc James, will the board be asking our CEO why this remains unfixed some time in the near future? Or will we be back here having this same conversation at 14 years and 15 years? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion we should double or triple the size of the community tech team. Per a number of people below appear to be lots of reasons why this needs to be fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Please yes, a million times yes. This way things like the accessibility things would get done, as well as highly desired things like Article Alerts for more languages that apparently didn't get done for lack of resources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am no fan of increased spending, but I strongly approve of doubling or tripling the size of the community tech team -- as long as at least half of the new hires are given the job of fixing boring bugs that have been around for years instead of working on huge new projects that are doomed to be rejected by the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: You also have my !vote (when is the new community wishlist going to be launched? I would be willing to add this as one of the 'meta wishes', lets see what the community thinks of this). Of course, this could also be (partially) solved by using the existing resources in other ways. I am not at all surprised that community members get pissed off at an unstoppable inflow of crap. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have received a number of questions / replies about this. One question is are we clear on a solution? Is the ask to provide a voice related CAPTCHA? Do we have a clear indication from those who need this technology regarding what solution they want to see? I am not clear on why proposing solutions was discouraged?
With respect to getting the solution built we have a number of options including a GoSC student, the wishlist, and directly from staff. First we need to be clear on what solution we are looking for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re "I am not clear on why proposing solutions was discouraged?" and "One question is are we clear on a solution?" we have been proposing solutions since February of 2006 and the problem is no closer to being solved. Proposing solutions is not working. Imagine for a moment that we were dealing with someone who who has a chronic medical condition that is normally easily treatable. What would be more effective; getting him in an examining room with a doctor who has been given the job of treating the patient, or two guys in a bar on the other side of town proposing and deciding on solutions to this medical problem, all without any actual contact with the patient or with anyone who can actually treat the condition?
That's the situation we are in now. You, as a board member, do not have the technical ability or authority to modify the Wikimedia software so that it no longer discriminates against a protected minority. You do, however, have the ability and authority to require someone at the WMF to answer the following questions:
  • What is the name of the WMF employee (or employees) who has been given the assignment of fixing this? Alternatively, when will that employee be named and by who?
  • What is the budget -- in other words how much does the WMF expect to spend on solving this? Alternatively, when will the budget be created, and by who?
  • What is the deadline -- in other words how long does the WMF expect it to take to solve this? Alternatively, when will the deadline be decided on, and who will make that decision?
  • Where will the software requirements be published, and how does the WMF propose that an independent third party can look at the results and verify whether the requirement were met?
Once we have a WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, an open conversation about possible solutions that includes that employee could be very productive. It isn't required, though. The politics of the WMF are such that any developer who tried such a stunt would most likely be fired. The way we normally do things around here is to have someone work on a problem in secret (possibly with "community surveys" but never an open discussion), come up with a solution, and then try to ram it down the community's throat. But that is a separate problem that we will not solve here, and one that doesn't need to be solved in order to solve our discriminating against the blind problem. All we need to do is to answer my four questions above. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have someone who has taken on trying to solve this problem per the ticket.[1] They are a contractor with the WMF from what I understand. This is not an easy problem obviously, with a lot of balancing issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did the WMF give this contractor the assignment of fixing this, or are they volunteering to fix it without being paid? If the latter. will WMF management either allow them to make changes to our software or assign someone who has the job of evaluating their solution and deciding whether to implement it?
Any proposed "solution" needs to include the name of an WMF employee (or contractor) who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a bit of a quandary here.

I see "I'll try to get more educated on the topic, and hopefully give more information in the coming weeks" at [ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6845 ] but nothing since.

I am seeing the same thing at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James#13_years ]: "working on it" then nothing.

The cynic in me says that if I keep patently waiting nothing will happen and after a while I will be posting a "14 years" complaint, but it I start making noise about hearing nothing I will be embarrassed to discover that someone has been furiously working on this and watch as they change the Wikimedia software in a way that solves everything -- 15 minutes after I hit send on my complaint.

I am left with these known facts:

  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to assign an employee or contractor the task of fixing this problem.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to budget a single dollar towards fixing this.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to provide an estimate of how long it is expected to take to fix this.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to write any requirements for fixing this. ("Requirements" is geek talk for "please define what 'done' is and how we will recognized that whoever is working on this is done")
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to make a plan for an independent third party (which in this case means "someone with a visual impairment accessing Wikipedia with a screen reader") to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

So I ask the community: how long is a reasonable time for me to patently wait without any updates before going back to complaining about WMF inaction? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a full fledged requirements gathering phase isn't necessary. Could the problem be solved my someone at WMF (or contract support) answering a phone call? What's the call volume we are talking about here? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have a set of requirements you don't know when you are done, or indeed what you were supposed to do. Requirements can be very informal -- just a developer writing down what he thinks "done" means and seeing if the boss and/or customer disagrees -- or they can be very elaborate, but if you don't have any requirements you are free to do things like do nothing and declare that you are done or do something that in no way resembles anything the boss and/or customers wanted. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meet with Evan at Wikimania and they are looking at it. Not a simple problem obviously. I think it is reasonable to give them 6 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If nothing happens by 03 February 2020 (that's 5 months from now) you can expect to see messages on various talk pages with the title "14 years".
One would only hope that Evan would post a progress report on the phabricator page some time in the next five months. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take more care not to wrongly revert

Please take a little more care to read the sources provided for edits properly before summarily and hastily reverting edits. You incorrectly reverted my edit twice because you hadn't taken the time to read the source properly. I have reverted both of your 'reverts'. It would help us both not to waste each other's time like this. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for the other bits in the source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Please look first and then when you're sure they can't be found revert, rather than overly-hasty reversion which I have to undo because you've not read closely enough. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the references better formatted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the point. By the way, it's usual when you've made a mistake to apologise, rather than hubristically attempt to pull rank. I repeat: please take more care to read references properly before incorrectly reverting editors' changes. You should know this, and certainly shouldn't need reminding of it by someone like me, with 250 mainspace edits. You might also want to revisit WP:OWNERSHIP Fortnum (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fortnum, you are way out of line, bordering on a personal attack. Go back to Talk:Gout#cks.nice.org.uk and calmly make your case using direct quotes from the source. Yelling at someone on his talk page for his good-faith efforts to follow WP:V and WP:MEDRS is inappropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not 'out of line', as you put it, for asking for someone to read more carefully before reverting edits. My case has already been made by using the sources properly and changing the article accordingly. It was, in fact, Doc James who incorrectly reverted an edit because he thought it the correct policy to 'revert first, read second'. As you can easily see by the edit summary, if you bother to look properly. 'Good faith efforts' do not involve knee-jerk reversion of edits before actually reading the source properly. 'Good faith efforts' also don't involve thinking you have the authority to 'tell someone off' about the formatting of references. And you also probably still wonder why the pool of regular wikipedia editors shrinks...
I have no doubt that Doc James is big enough to fight his own battles without needing you to go into bat for him. As for accusing me of 'yelling' - stop being so melodramatic. I'm not going to enter into any further discussion about this: I have more pressing things to do. And so should you. Fortnum (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;
And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,
or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;
'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."
--The Boxer by Simon & Garfunkel
--Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, you just quoted song lyrics at me. Are you 14? Fortnum (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need to call me Lord. Guy will do.
"I'm not going to enter into any further discussion about this": --Fortnum 20:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
(Continues discussing it, just like the song predicted he would): --Fortnum 22:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, the best way to stop discussing something is to stop discussing it. I'm just saying.[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're not great at parsing text. I said I wasn't going to continue discussing the issue in hand. I haven't continued it, and neither shall I. There is no need - Doc James was in the wrong in incorrectly reverting an edit because he hadn't taken the time to read the source properly, and the edit summary is clear for anyone to see.
I was replying to your comment. I now also find that I'm not exactly alone in my experience here. So we'll leave it at that. Please don't quote any more song lyrics at me: it was irritating when my teenage children did it. Now you've starting linking YouTube videos... As I say - you people wonder why wikipedia cannot attract and retain new regular editors. Just read this conversation, and you should find your answer. Hubristic, holier-than-thou 'editors' who make much of blue-linked [WP:x]] articles whilst missing the point of them entirely. If you want to continue this discussion (i.e. the discussion between us, not about the substantive matter of which I will not speak further) then do it on my talk page, rather than continue to do it on someone else's: an action which you have previously criticised before enthusiastically doing it yourself. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our content has developed and improved to such an extent that many readers don’t feel they have any more to add. This is the most important factor, in my view, for the tapering off of new editors joining. It was predictable and inevitable. Editors arguing and disagreeing over content has existed, naturally, since day one of Wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Literaturegeek: There are actually two distinct classes of new users who complain about how mean we are and how we drive new users like them away (but without actually leaving), and they require entirely different approaches.
First there is the good-faith new editor: Put yourself in their shoes. Wikipedia has a bunch of weird rules, and you feel like everyone is unfairly ganging up on you. Try to be tolerant – within limits – of any behavior that is driven by frustration. Keep patiently explaining why Wikipedia is the way it is and why you are opposing their edits. Try to help them to get past this and grow into a productive editor. Remember the mistakes you made when you were new.
Next there is the flame warrior: He may be new here (or sometimes he is an old flamer wearing a new sock) but has had years of flaming in YouTube comments, On FaceBook and Twitter, etc. and is eager to start a wiki-battle at the drop of a hat. The best advice for dealing with the fighter is to simply not get sucked into another one of his battles, but sometimes it is entertaining to make fun of them for a day or two and then to stop reading what they write. Flamers and trolls hate it when you stop paying attention to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Fortnum: I expect "So we'll leave it at that" should be parsed as "I fully intend to continue flaming Doc James. Guy, and anyone else who disagrees with me". Nobody was making personal comments and nobody was attacking anybody until you decided to pick a fight with comments like "hubristically attempt to pull rank". I know an experienced flame warrior when I see one, and your flamethower has the paint worn off the trigger.
That being said, I am getting bored with mocking you, so I am not going to bother reading your predictable next flame. And unlike you, when I say that I am going to stop responding I actually stop responding. Turns out that it is easy to do if you simply don't bother reading whatever pithy flame the flame warrior shits out next. Have fun shouting into an empty room.
"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're not mocking me - you're just exposing yourself a little. For someone who doesn't 'respond to flames' you get yourself awfully wound up about nothing on someone else's behalf. You probably also think you've not 'made any personal attacks', either. Anyway, you're right. You should find something else to do. And so should I. 14:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Baclofen article

It seems you regularly revert additions to the Baclofen article whenever people make misguided attempts to mention its purported uses wrt alcoholism treatment. Yet when I place in a small reference to the negative findings from the University of Amsterdam (research which is mentioned in the article, as if it is yet to happen) in an attempt to curb this speculation, you hastily revert it as well, bundled in with the other edits? If you don't think the source is high quality enough, advise a better one. Or at least give a good explanation for the revert so I can fix it up. It's absurd to leave a mention of something as if it is yet to happen, when in fact the research took place years ago (yes, I know "yet to occur" things that have already happened lurk all over the Wiki -- and yes, it makes articles look stale and sloppy). As is, it just makes it look like the University of Amsterdam just got a $750,000 windfall and the solution to alcoholism might be right around the corner. It's too optimistic.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 12:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah now I see the talk page has been debating it for nearly ten years without anybody coming up with a decent workable solution for the article space. You'd think IAR would kick in at some point, and the article could end up giving at least a decent idea of the results. I don't care enough to wade into this one.
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 12:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Peace and Passion good point. It was the mention of its use for drug misuse in the lead that I had concerns with. Have restored the content to the history section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD Symptoms

Those symptoms are the DSM criteria. There are other diagnostic criteria, such as ICD-10

https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/F01-F99/F90-F98/F90-/F90.9 - Chrisvacc (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chrisvacc they are not the exact DSM criteria. We cannot use the exact criteria as they are copyrighted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But it's still the DSM criteria. It's just the DSM symptoms reworded to avoid copyright. What I'm saying is I think it's a good idea to point out since there are various different criteria for diagnosis. - Chrisvacc (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The DSM does not own the symptoms. The diagnostic criteria are more than the symptoms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS request

Can I ask you to take a look at ticket:2019082810006731

The requester suggested it be deleted although in fairness did suggest another option.

I think they may be right but it is not my area of expertise (coincidentally, I had a visit from a vet today, but the subject was another vet, not the practice per se.)

My concern is that this may not be a simple edit.

My supposition was that this article, created in 2003, was originally titled "veterinarian" and someone moved it to "veterinary physician". However, I looked at the move log, and I see a move from "veterinary physician" to "veterinarian", but no other moves. I must be missing something.

There is also collateral issues as the term is also used in Veterinary medicine in the United States.S Philbrick(Talk)

veterinary physician has been used per [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway started a move discussion Talk:Veterinary physician Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, Thanks.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

signs/symptoms infobox

Doc James, wouldnt it be a good idea to create an infobox [4] specifically for signs/symptoms... example-Category:Symptoms and signs: Nervous system (Id go ahead and do it, I just don't know how to produce the page)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ozzie10aaaa we sort of merged the signs and symptoms one into infobox medical conditions. What do you think is missing from the latter infobox? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
where would an article like Lhermitte's sign go or fit in as its not a medical condition, similar articles could go under an infobox that indicates signs and symptoms, the infobox could have some familiar information including, what is it a sign of?...IMO[5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ozzie10aaaa what do you think about using the "differential diagnosis" parameter such as Lhermitte's sign? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes I guess that could be done, your right--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could add other items specifically for symptoms to that infobox if you want aswell... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no not with the good idea your indicating above however for clarity it might be wise to indicate on template use ddx for signs and symptoms...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could also put the things that result in the symptom under "cause" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think your original idea of ddx is better, however with an indication on[6] that parameter is used in signs and symptoms, such as


  • differential = (please indicated in articles signs and symptoms different causes here) or [7]


--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[8]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ozzie10aaaa stay safe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotional edits?

Hi Doc. I'm contacting you about this as I've gathered from previous work done by you at Keratoconus and elsewhere that you're experienced in this area. The edits made by Deeshant_Sharma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Keratoconus and Andrew Lam (ophthalmologist) reek of self-promotion. What do you think? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Robby.is.on have posted on their page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need a bit of clarity

Hi, J - if a police report says a person died from multiple dog bites, that is not actually the ‘’cause’’ of death is it? I would think the person suffered multiple dog bites but the actual cause of death would be something like the carotid artery was severed and victim ‘’bled to death’’, or died of ‘’cardiac arrest’’, or something like that, correct? The bite itself doesn’t kill you, does it? (Forgive my laypersonitis) Atsme Talk 📧 14:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cause is a pathway of events. Yes it would be the "dog bites" as the primary cause. Everyones heart stops eventually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medical article with unsourced treatment suggestions

This request is prompted by an OTRS message but frankly you don't even have to read the message. ticket:2019082910008442

I removed a sentence from Esophageal spasm on the basis that it was unsourced. However, I note that the entire treatment section, which includes fairly specific and significant suggestions, is unsourced. I mulled over removing the entire section as unsourced but if it's all good advice, the better option of course is to add appropriate sources.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that article needs work. Will take a look and see what I can do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neuronetics Banners

Hi User:Doc James. I’m reaching out on behalf of Neuronetics, a client of mine at Vault Communications. I appreciate your efforts and expertise as both a trusted and respected physician and editor on the page, and wanted to respectfully inquire about the banners that have been added to the top of the Neuronetics article. Might you be willing to connect with me on that within the Talk Page? If you prefer not to, can you kindly let me know and I’ll do my best to collaborate with other editors in the community in hopes of better understanding, and hopefully resolving, the current issues on the article page? I certainly understand how busy you are and know you may be focused elsewhere, but I wanted to reach out to you directly as my first step. Thanks for your time. MD at Vault Communications (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spintendo is already helping you out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit?

Hi, my edit to the MDMA page, which you reverted, was made after reading the source material quoted in full. Since it was a meta analysis, I also read all of the source material contributing to that study, which took a few hours, before I made any changes. The edits I made were factually correct, the info I added was not already on the MDMA page, and the point I was making is explained multiple times in the source material. If the source is accurate enough to prove the points being made in the first place, it must follow that it is also sufficient to prove the point I was making. The source material specified made it clear that (specifically) polydrug users and those with pre-existing depressive illness were not screened out of the study, which was partly based on casualty visits made by people self reporting polydrug use. There is not (and there can not be) any conclusive proof that MDMA was solely, or even partially, responsible for causing any ongoing depressive illness, without the prior exclusion of every other potential causative factor in test subjects. As I'm sure you are aware, this is not currently possible, firstly due to the illegality of any such research being undertaken, and subsequently because the only viable test subjects available have, in the majority of cases, used more than one drug before presenting at casualty. Pre-existing depressive illness is also discussed in the source material, which states that the 'chicken and egg' paradox applies in this case: Is it likely that depression may have occurred in the absence of the drug? Are people with depression more likely to attempt to self-medicate by using MDMA in the first place? These are all moot points which are not just 'unknown', but currently 'unknowable'. Measurable chemical changes thought to be produced directly by MDMA are reversible in humans, a process which is completed within a week of commencing abstinence of MDMA, in almost all cases. Baseline levels are ('normally') restored within 24-48 hours. Even the oft cited 'tuesday blues' effect, some days after taking MDMA, has defied all attempts to quantify or measure it. Chemically and functionally, there is no measurable deficit, and no reason to expect any deficit to occur many days after the drug and all active metabolites have been excreted. What would the mechanism of action be to cause such effects long after leaving the system? Why do the symptoms not manifest earlier? Chemical cascades leading to apoptosis would again have been completed days before. The doses used in tests on rats and mice are almost invariably colossal and have been administered for prolonged periods without any period of abstinence, conditions which would be extremely unlikely to occur in even the most determined of humans. Nevertheless, the damage caused to rat and mice brains is often cited without adequate explanation, and used as an analogue for human brain matter, which it is provably not.

The causes of Major depressive illness are still not well understood, but inasmuch as it isattributable, the root causes are multi-factorial and highly complex. Therefore it is impossible (and frankly disingenuous) at this time to make implications that the two things (MDMA and persistent depressive illness) are positively correlated. The exclusion of that critically important - if not fundamental - caveat from any explanation of the sources seems to me to be both morally and factually wrong, and the highly selective nature of what is included, or not, is a perfect case for why such issues should not be decided arbitrarily by any one user (ie yourself). I have not yet restored the page to include my additions, and I won't until you've had adequate time to reply. With all the above in mind, what possible reason did you have for the wholesale removal of my additions to the page? Please be aware that I will not be drawn into any kind of 'flame war' with you. If after reading this and replying, we still disagree about the edits, I suggest we take it to arbitration where independent others can make the final decision. Thanks Codeye (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I condensed it to "is associated with" as that summarizes that association is not causation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your bad grammar

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Measles&diff=prev&oldid=913321369 again. It's embarrassing. Graham Beards (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page

Hi, i just thought i should notify you of my contribution on Edd Branson article you moved to Draft space. I noticed that the original creater of the article is currently blocked on suspected paid editing, i then looked in the article and removed unsourced claims to clean it up as the tag suggested then moved it back into Article space. I then thought of notifying you as the Admin who is looking into that case.Gukura (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metronidazole benzoate

Hi There, thanks for the edits on my clumsy edits re: metronidazole benzoate and the (I suspect) myth that post-gastric delivery is a problem.

I haven't got access to Kucers' myself, but am doing what I can to get access from colleagues.

I wonder is ref 13 on the metronidazole page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metronidazole should be removed entirely as it makes an assertion without evidence - and as I noted, in personal communication, the authors were unable to provide a source.

One said "maybe Martindale" but Martindale doesn't support it either.


What do you think?

Do you happen to have access to the monograph in Kucers' you could share? or give me references from Kucers'?

I have a suspicion that this is nothing other than a longstanding, clinically irrelevant myth that refuses to die, but I'm more than happy to be proved wrong!


Kind Regards TheConfusion (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you change the allopregnanolone page? Allopregnanolone is not known scientifically as brexanolone...this is a Sage Pharmaceuticals trade name. Let's keep WIKI accurate, not an advertising platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids (talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allopregnanolone

Why do you continually change the allopregnanolone page? Allopregnanolone is not known scientifically as brexanolone...this is a Sage Pharmaceuticals trade name. Let's keep WIKI accurate, not an advertising platform.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&oldid=913823199"