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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.
FYI, there has been a recent uptick in the amount of inappropriate/non-neutral IP edits occurring on this page. It may warrant protection to allow editing only by non-IP users. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you! This page [1] would also benefit from semi-protection from IPs-there's a fair amount of vandalism/inappropriate edits that have occurred there as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits to Hydroxychloroquine
Hi Doc James. Happy New Year to you. In case you weren't aware, there's a comment here about how your recent edits to Hydroxychloroquine may have violated the ANI embargo on adding or removing drug pricing. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James. As a reminder the ANI close remains in effect including "There is an embargo on adding or removing pricing during this process.". As such this edit which updates and removes old inaccurate information runs contrary to that embargo. Let me know if you have any questions by pinging me here or leave a message on my talk page (which Ronz has linked you to above). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Obviously given your position on inclusion of pricing it's "funny" I was here because of a removal but that's Wikipedia for you :). Have a happy new year, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know if everyone is fine with it, but I discussed it on IRC with two different sysops and we all agree that updating the information is fine. So that's at least 3 uninvolved sysops who are fine with it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, If you took even a moment to look at the edit as opposed to continuing Colin's harasment you would have realized that docjames was removing vandalism. Unless you think Walmart receipt was a serious source. Shameful. AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlmostFrancis: I did look at the edit. It's why I linked to it above. There's nothing in there that is a Walmart receipt that I can see. Please correct me if I'm wrong. As you were not yet registered when The relevant ANI thread closed you might not be aware but there is "strict enforcement of WP:AGF, WP:CIV" in these discussions. Please dial back. "Barkeep49, docjames was removing vandalism. Unless you think Walmart receipt was a serious source." accomplishes the same point without worrying about civility or good faith. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49:, It might be worth clarifying in the ANI close whether updating and/or clarifying pricing information counts as adding and/or removing pricing. Looking at it one way, to change a price requires removing the old price and adding a new one, looking at it another way, the presence or absence of pricing remains constant. Clarifying the information is even more vaguely covered. Tagging for improvement does not appear to have been mentioned, and probably should remain that way as it is something likely to be done by totally uninvolved people. There remains the problem of what to do if another totally ininvolved person addresses a tag requesting improvement and makes an edit that could reasonably be considered an improvement, or just makes a plausible improvement. This is unlikely to happen often, so could possibly be simply ignored as mostly harmless. If the same person makes a habit of doing this, they could be notified of the dispute and embargo, but it would be preferable to disrupt normal encyclopedia-building activity as little as possible.· · · Peter Southwood(talk): 07:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025#User:Colin: The question of drug pricing is remitted to a single venue: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Product pricing). This applies to at least three posters on this page, who are in breach of ANI conditions. An admin giving notifications and discussing with the two targets of the notification is one thing; continuing a price dispute on a user talk page is quite another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for including drug prices
Hi James, I am mot aware of the reasoning behind routinely including drug pricing in drug articles. I am getting the opposition reasoning explained in considerable detail, but that is one side of the debate. Is there a reasonably concise statement of the value of drug pricing as encyclopedic content, justifying its inclusion in all or most articles in a prominent position, somewhere that I can look it up for myself? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pbsouthwood Prices matter for different reasons for different groups. Per HHS "List prices matter to patients"[2] Per MSF "secret medicine prices cost lives".[3]
Prices mater to me as an emergency physician as 1) pts often ask me how much medications I am prescribing will cost 2) I get pts coming to the ER as they are unable to afford the medications someone else prescribed them. These details are useful and encyclopedia even though they are approximates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doc James. I saw User talk:Diannaa#Copyvios at El Salvador on Diannaa's user talk and then noticed that you had protected this article for a week per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive401#User:Javierboujee26 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Fully protected one week ). The protection has expired and Javierboujee26 seems to be back to edit warring again. I've got no stake in this other than normally being WP:HERE. I could revert back to the WP:STATUSQUO version or at least the version you protected, but that seems likely to only further exacerbate the edit warring. Moreover, if there's really a copyvio involved, any further reverts would just create more things to clean up. Anyway, I figured I'd ask you about it to see if anything can or should be done. It's possible that there could be an issue in communicating in English with this editor; the account is about a month old and seems to be an SPA with respect to things related to EL Salvador, but might not be very familiar with Wikipedia in general. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just listed this diagram as Picture of the day for 18th January. I don't want to mislead our readers, so please could you check the blurb, which is based on various related articles, for errors and amend or extend as you think fit. Incidentally, the file description mentions avian flu, but the diagram just mentions flu in general. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi Do James, sorry to have to bother you. Turnitin went down for maintenance for a while on January 4, and the CopyPatrol system still has not resumed posting reports. I have posted twice on Eran's user talk and sent him an email, and pinged MusikAnimal, who often helps but is currently on vacation. I wonder if you have any suggestions as to what else we can do to get the bot rolling again? Thanks in advance. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Doc James,
I wish you a happy new year. I do not understand why my edits on MCT for borderline were deleted, although the evidence is even more robust than for example for mindfulness, which you left untouched (no RCT yet). The training is available at no cost in 8 languages and there are two trials on the methods that seem worth reporting. Why delete this and not others, thanks, yours --Wiki psych21 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Doc James, I will do as advised and have, for example, changed my edit at "Habit Reversal Training" accordingly. Hope that is accpetable (would be grateful if you have a look). Yours --Wiki psych21 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Doc James, Thanks again for checking into this. I have mixed feelings about Frontiers and therefore agree that it is perhaps better to delete the citation. I would be grateful if you could upload/publish the draft. Thanks Wiki psych21 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
addition: I moved the page myself and thank you for your generous help. I also agree that my edits on borderline personality should remain deleted, one source is simply not enough for wikipedia, yours Wiki psych21 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know your conversation with Sandy proceeds below but I'm not looking for people to send behavioral issues. Really I'm looking for some fresh eyes and a few volunteers. However, it also seemed incomplete not to give space to behavioral issues if people want to discuss them. If people don't that's fine too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish was repeatedly mentioning filing an arbcase, but he "retired" after a string of failure to AGF posts and I twice requested that he stop stirring the pot. You might want to read my several recent posts to his talk page, encouraging him to stop stirring that pot. I am not aware of anyone who believes an arbcase is the way to go at this point. Barkeep49 is updating AN on the need for an admin to review the RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After he mentioned it several times, I repeatedly asked him to stand down; others (like me) would rather work to address our differences. You can review the state of his talk page before he retired, after Barkeep49 (bravely) recommended the AGF issues for enforcement of the discretionary sanctions. James, I would really like to have a new start. Part of that is that you should understand that you cannot use a guideline (WP:MEDMOS) to editwar at a Featured article to install your personal preference; I believe that Casliber deserves the courtesy of a discussion at least on the talk page before you edit war. Self-reverting would be a very good sign that you agree that collegiality is more important at this point than where one piece of information sits on one page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have failed to come to any compromise or find common ground regarding the significant difference of opinions we have on a bunch of aspects of Wikipedia unfortunately... Not sure how you suggest moving forwards from this? Most of the discussions appear to simple be going in circles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that ways forward can be found. I also believe that returning from three 90-hour workweeks and immediately re-engaging the same behaviors discussed on the ANI (edit warring to install a personal preference at Schizophrenia, and using a guideline that provides a suggested order as a justification) is not likely to be the best way forward. James, I strongly believe that other medical editors would like to see us return to what we once were. Could you please try to read and take on board all of the commentary everywhere about your behaviors? Could you explain to me why Cas's placement of the diagnosis section is so significant to you that you would edit war over it? Could you help me understand why this matters ? We are awaiting your feedback on article talk: polling is not a substitute for discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we can let other editors speak for themselves. A bunch of us put in a fair bit of effort to put in place a small degree of consistency between health condition related articles over the last number of years as we felt that this is useful to our readers to help them rapidly find what they are looking for. It also helps our editors rapidly determined were new evidence should be placed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that a handful of editors can force a set order into every article, even if that disrupts the narrative, then you need to take that up at MEDMOS, and make it part of the guideline. A forced order of the narrative is not part of MEDMOS; it has suggested headings. I regret that you stated at Talk:Schizophrenia that Ozzie10aaaa is also doing this; the frequency with which he shows up to support you with no reasoning, and a "I agree with Doc James" does not look good on either of you. (I did notice that once he "concurred" rather than "agreeing".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With them being the most prolific medical editor in 2018, I am not concerned by their support. WP:MED has generally worked well together for years. We have made significant progress in a bunch of efforts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
James, you are edit warring again, on a Featured article. You have had multiple warnings, and at this level, you understand that it is not necessary to go right up to the 3RR limit to be considered edit warring. I think that Casliber, a psychiatrist and FA writer, has a good understanding of how the narrative should flow on schizophrenia, and has been working on the ordering of the narrative, but even if Cas was WP:RANDY and not an experienced editor in his field, please discuss rather than edit war on any article with any other editor. This is a pattern; it would be very regrettable, in the midst of everything else going on, if I had to ask ANI to ask you to avoid editing Featured articles, and I would NOT want to do that at this point, so please self-revert and wait until you can discuss with others. There Is No Deadline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:SandyGeorgia this is a Featured Article. It has had that layout since at least 2011. Yes "There Is No Deadline". I am not seeing consensus for the change in question. You are free to go to ANI and make whatever request you wish at this point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that you understand that you do not need to tell me what a Featured article is or how criteria are applied; you need to discuss the flow with Casliber on the talk page, and not use your interpretation of a guideline (WP:MEDMOS) to install your preferred order. Regardless of what you perceive to be *your* reason, editwarring is editwarring, and you have a pattern of editwarring. Please self-revert. I hope the order of one section in an article should not be of such significance at a time when we are all working towards developing a more collegial environment. I respect and understand, as you said on Trypto's talk, that you have been away because of several 90-hour workweeks, but returning to active editing by editwarring is not a good look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
James, I understand that you have been working long hours, and I recognize that you may not have followed all recent discussions, but this pattern is part of the problem, and regardless of where you have "requested further opinions",[6] it is still edit warring. The pattern of engaging in conflict, and then posting to WT:MED for support as soon as you encounter pushback, is part of the dynamic that has affected the collegial working environment, and among the things that need to stop to further a collegial environment. You have posted for further opinions to WT:MED before even waiting to hear from Cas or anyone else at Talk:Schizophrenia. This pattern needs to stop. Could we please work towards improving the environment among medical articles, particularly at this juncture, when we are trying to solve many problems? Why is the order of one section on an article page so important that you would edit war over it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I heard from you. I have requested further opinions. We likely have differing ideas on what is required for "a collegial environment". Similar to how we have differing ideas on the audience we are writing for and what sort of information we should be attempting to provide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
