User talk:Doc James/Archive 131

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

removal of information

You have removed references to well known writers published by a known publishing entity, i.e. small press. Many small presses who have published the same writers exist on Wiki and do you intend to remove parts of articles on these, as well? Please provide a good reason for doing so. Damaging the article and removal of links that demonstrate the import of the publisher as a lead up to removal is vandalism. Did you make a good faith effort to improve the article or only seek its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.181.145 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I was contacted and I shall weigh in on the subject. I operate this publishing company. It is non profit. The approach taken by one wiki writer is amusing "someone is being payed to write this..." No one has ever made a profit from this press. Non profit small presses don't make money and certainly don't pay to have articles about them. The most they can hope to do is publish. Then too, unlikely in the extreme to be guided by what this site needs for notability since they don't derive profit from it. Unlike people who teach wiki and post their class schedules on wiki and fly around on wiki. Next, I have observed the earliest versions of this article. And the transformations in the hands of various people. And the removals of accurate information. The insertion of inaccurate information afterward. I'd like to think that this is al in the spirit of good information. For my part there are what seem to be instances of political struggles going on and perhaps these are no more than the result of the fact that there was once a political struggle to take credit for the Annex publications and make a profit as a result. Now there is only a small press working to continue to publish. The user who suggested that the article on this small press is as deserving as another small press is right. All small presses are going to lack for publicity and the fanfare that larger presses can pay for. The question is then, are the editors who run wiki going to wind up subservient to the same politics that determine who is an who is not worthy of attention which determine the current, say, usa political election line-up? Is Bernie Sanders worthy of attention or not? I would guess yes, editors at wiki prefer to use the common standard and will ignore art and artists and art organizations that do not line up with their 'notability' game, and have done with it. But you see, small time knows this beforehand and doesn't have to worry the issue. If you run a large literary publishing house your products will be noteworthy and if you have taken up not for profit publishing then your publications can be ignored. Even when they set the standard for the next revolution in publishing years down the line. This is an old game. Is there anyone who is not aware? The same for the article on the individual who runs the small press. What does the article do for them. In my case, nothing. Though wiki editors may imagine that individuals wait to pass, perhaps they should see that the down side. Having a wiki article means you get your privacy invaded and not much more. Your real accomplishments are not taking place on wiki. So if someone posts your name or your work there and others want to play the gate keeper, let them. I was surprised that both these 'take down's' were going on at the same time, and by the odd number of categories of attack, but if it is motivated, that is to say inspired by an 'interest' in seeing the information taken down, there isn't any conflict of interest argument that can speak to that situation. "conflict of interest"...what is that in a sea of conflicting interests. I think we should let those who enjoy the sport of passing for controlling interests go at it and ignore them. By the way 'DOC', I agree that medical illustration and photographic images speak beyond the present challenges to their political correctness and have had to argue that case elsewhere. Annex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juka00028 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

We are based on high quality sources. We are not here to publish what others have not yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Avner Halperin

Hi, DocJames. I am wondering if you can respond to my questions and comments on the talk page of Avner Halperin. Thank you for your help so far. --BennettInCA (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

What is your relation to the subject in question User:BennettInCA? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, DocJames. I disclosed on the talk page that I work with him and he has tasked me to help with Wikipedia. I also just disclosed it on my userpage. Telling you my exact position would identify me by name which I do not want to do but I do not think it is a requirement; however, please correct me if I am wrong. I cannot see the original disclosure now as the page looks like it has been deleted. It says that it was deleted for being promotional which I am confused about because I believe the edit history showed people removing promotional content. Regardless, I agree the page needed a lot of work so it is probably better to start from the beginning. I went through and took all of my proposed edits and added additional changes I believe meets Wikipedia policies. I then submitted a new article for review instead of posting it directly. I also made the disclosure on that talk page that I am connected to him. Thank you for your help so far. Please let me know if I in any way have failed to adhere to policy so that I do not run afoul of editors.--BennettInCA (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User:BennettInCA Okay thanks. Missed the original disclosure. On your talk page is good. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Ozone therapy

I notice you are removing content that includes Medline-indexed journal articles on ozone and cancer, citing "higher quality sources" needed. I assume as a doctor you are familiar with the fact that PubMed contains only high quality peer-reviewed journals indexed by the National Library of Medicine. So it is a little concerning that you are removing valid scientific content. If you have a concern about the quality of a particular peer-reviewed published Medline-indexed study, you are certainly free to point that out by adding you analysis of the paper. However, you have removed the content thereby biasing the Wikipedia page with your obvious personal bias against ozone therapy for cancer. The rest of the world may not share your view. It is not your place to remove published peer-reviewed research. Are you going to remedy your personal bias, and abstain from removing valid content? A Khan, MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.202.63 (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS as mentioned on your talk page. Peer reviewed DOES NOT equal review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, just saying "it's on PubMed, therefore it's okay" is a rather low bar. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Your question about sources (abortion)

Thank you, Doc James, for raising your question about sources with me directly rather than reverting my edits again. Is the book you're referring to "Sex and Herbs and Birth Control" by Ann Hibner Koblitz? From her Wikipedia page it's clear that the book is published by a foundation of which the author is director. It's not uncommon for a nonprofit to publish material authored by its staff and officials. The book won some university award for the quality of its research (link on the author's page). In any case, in response to your earlier criticism about insufficient sources on the scientific evidence for abortifacient properties of certain plants, I put in some additional references. I do not believe that this assertion is controversial, but please tell me if I'm wrong about that. If you wish to discuss this issue further, I'd be happy to.NightHeron (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I had provided details regarding sourcing on your talk page.

I had also started a discussion on the Talk:abortion page

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussing sources

Thank you for sending the guidelines for medical sources. As a newcomer to editing, I have not yet adjusted to Wikipedia reference style and have been using standard scholarly style without the template (and without ISBN numbers, which are generally not used in scholarly style), but I'm of course willing to change and use whatever style is preferred. If you don't mind, I'd like to initiate a discussion of sources, since you have questioned the sourcing for my edits of the abortion and Margaret Sanger articles.

I understand the need for very strict and high standards for medical sources (described in the guidelines you sent me), because of the real harm that can come from outdated or poor sources if people consult Wikipedia for medical information (similar to Wikipedia's policy on potentially libelous edits). However, large parts of the two articles in discussion are not about medicine, but rather relate to history, history of medicine, sociology/psychology, etc. The standards in the non-sciences are not the same as in medicine. For example, sources need not be "recent" (and journal articles don't have PMIDs). Also, sources are often published by less established publishers (niche publishers, very small publishers, nonprofit organizations, small professional associations, etc.). There's also some flexibility in using online non-print sources. Sources should be judged on their own merits, sometimes on a case by case basis.

I do not have any medical background, and my edits are generally non-medical (except for the general assertion, which I didn't think was controversial and for which there are numerous sources, that some plants have been shown to have abortifacient properties). However, I have to question the statement in the form that you restored that "The use of herbs...is not recommended by physicians"[64]. The reference is a very interesting one: "A descriptive retrospective survey was conducted on the calls received by the Montevideo Poison Centre between 1986 and 1999 concerning the ingestion of herbal infusions with abortive intent" (from the abstract). The study is consistent with my edit, which concerns the indiscriminant use of those plants -- in this case in a country (Uruguay) which in those years banned abortion. The statement about "not recommended by physicians" suggests that no physician would ever recommend herbal abortifacients. Is this true? Even if it is true in North America, is it true internationally? In Cuba? In India? In China?

Sorry I've gone on at length. I'd welcome hearing your views. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) NightHeron, you said you are familiar with "standard scholarly style" referencing, so you might be more comfortable with Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. Any citation style is allowed, while we do prefer consistency within an article. That said, there are plenty of fixer-uppers (WikiGnomes) who are happy to adjust things like this, so don't worry too much about style issues while getting started. Enjoy editing! ☆ Bri (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Expectation is to use the same style of referencing as the article in question.

WP:MEDHOW runs through some easy techniques for referencing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply to your last message

Replying to: "Sources should generally be from the last 10 years. Doc James"

Please give me a Wikipedia reference for making that statement.

If that were true, it would certainly alter my opinion (and the opinion of many people) about Wikipedia. Just try telling a scholar in history, history of medicine, history of science, language and literatures, etc. that no source before 2008 should be used.NightHeron (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You For pointing out errors and wrong facts in editing articles. I'm really appreciate it! HtetPyae (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Glad you found this useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

herpangina photo

Dear Doc James,

I am currently authoring a chapter in the 7th edition of:

Cummings Otolaryngology 6th Edition Head and Neck Surgery, 3-Volume Set eBook ISBN: 9780323310703 eBook ISBN: 9780323278201 Hardcover ISBN: 9781455746965

It is challenging for me to find herpangina and other photos in my pediatric otolaryngology clinic. I wanted to ask if you would give permission to use your images, with full citation for you. I am also curious if you have, as an ED physician, images of the tonsils with mononucleosis.

Sincerely,

Anna K. Meyer, MD, FACS, FAAP Associate Professor Program Director-Pediatric Otolaryngology Fellowship Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery Coach-UCSF School of Medicine University of California, San Francisco 550 4th Street, Station 6574, Box 3213 San Francisco, CA 94158 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annakmeyer (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Annakmeyer sure you may use my photos. Please attribute as "James Heilman, MD, Wikipedia"

You can see one of my photos of here of mononucleosis

Also if you have photos that you own and are willing to release under an open license than please upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Let me know if you need help with that :-) Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thanks a lot for this image in the article of classification of obesity. Thanks once again. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That is an old image :-) One of my first to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

But that tells the fact that you are able to understand important issues much earlier than many. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Further to add, I learned from Mr. Asaf Bartov in a workshop that you are most read medical author on the entire planet! That is really a great achievement and I feel great that I know you. It is a huge responsibility as well, once I know you, but is it a great thing to realize it for sure. It is no coincidence that you are most read medical author on the entire planet. It is your ability to observe and address the issues. I am envious (not jealous because it is bad thing but being envious is not) of your this ability to observe! Thanks a lot. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Doc James is indeed a very observant and extremely well read medical doctor :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you did take an active part in the discussion. I think you may have just been mentioned. However, to be sure, I have included you in my mail shot. SilkTork (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping User:SilkTork. Just got back from holidays. No thoughts on this at this point in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

EDS vs EDSs

Hi, your opinion would be much appreciated here: Talk:Ehlers–Danlos syndromes#inconsistency in use of acronym. Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Replied there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hope this isn't getting you down

Hi James. Just wanted to say I hope the lack of AGF in the Osmosis discussions is not getting you down. As you know, I feel strongly about the content issues. And I do have concerns with the process as well. But I also believe you are one of our best, and you always do what you think is best for Wikipedia. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Clayoquot thanks for the note. Yah a little depressing this all is. Could the videos be improved, sure. We can however either ask for improvements or make them ourselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Epilepsy

Your edit warring at Epilepsy is unacceptable. Your claim that the videos are leads is bogus. I have explained on the talk page that is is patently clear the video and article bear no resemblance whatsoever other than covering the topic "Epilepsy". Since your claims are false, you have an opportunity to correct your mistake by removing the video from Epilepsy. Repeatedly inserting material that fails WP:V will result in a block or worse.

Further I have asked at WP:MED for you to be topic banned from inserting these videos. You clearly have a COI and are unable to edit collaboratively. You needed consensus of the WP community to do this. You didn't ask for it and you haven't got it. -- Colin°^Talk 19:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Videos from Osmosis

I've edited the next five in c:Category:Videos from Osmosis this evening.

First one:

File:Abscesses 1.webm

Next five:

--RexxS (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:RexxS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Angelman syndrome question

Hi Doc James - I've posted a question at the talk page for this article, concerning the correct pronunciation; I noticed you might have that article on your watchlist. Thanks for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation is not really an area I know anything about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

Op-ed: Death knell for The Signpost?

News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.

Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.

In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good

Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers

Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs

Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.

Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.

Humour: WikiWorld Reruns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Chronic Mania

Hi Doc James,

You recently removed information about Chronic Mania (see this edit). Your reason for the removal was "need secondary sources" so I reviewed Wikipedia's policy: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Having reviewed the policy, I fail to see how the information that I added required a secondary source. However, I am not a medical expert so I would appreciate if you could please explain why secondary sources were necessary for this information. Also, FYI if the only issue with some information is that it lacks secondary sources then you could use the {{Primary source inline|date=}} tag instead of deleting it. Thanks. selfworm^Talk) 19:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Secondary sources are very much prefered. We do not typically use single case reports ever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Angelman syndrome caption

[1] Thank you! I was wondering whether I should bother someone who actually knows what a proband was without having to look it up to review that image caption, but thought you'd likely be too busy. --GRuban (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User:GRuban wondering if we should cut the image in half to have just the four pictures of the person with the condition? Right now IMO the picture is a little small. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Unfortunately the original isn't that much larger, so it will only help a little. --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay. It needs to be approved before I can crop it. But when that is done will go ahead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering

What do you think about the rise of Wikipedia to 'solve' the disinformation problems of social media. This is for a Signpost Story. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey User:Eddie891 Most controversial topics are already semi protected and relatively decently watched. I am hoping that this will be enough to deal with much of the potential disruption.

On the plus side this sort of exposure may bring in more people who are interested in improving or maintaining these topics as they may see Wikipedia as having a potentially greater impact.

Well Youtube has announced this effort, I do not think it has rolled out yet. I would be nice to help with maintenance if they provided us with a list of articles they plan to link to. This would also allow us to determine what effect their change has on readership if any.

We could of course potentially build something internally but creating a list of articles based on traffic coming from Youtube. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Update

removal of videos

Wikipedia:Osmosis: "This collaboration has formally ended as of Mar 29th, 2018."

Are you going to update the community about this, at the RFC and Talk Jimbo? I could write a neutral note myself, but some might accuse me of grave dancing and respond with more abuse. I feel that really, this is your job, and that better communication with the wider community is definitely one of the lessons you need to learn, and admit you need to learn. -- Colin°^Talk 10:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I was waiting to finish with the removal of videos.

Was also waiting to clear up a few other things behind the scenes.

Update is out here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Vasculitis video

Hey, why did you remove the video from Vasculitis? I saw it was there this morning, when I checked again it disappeared I thought I imagined it, then I saw the edit history and it says you removed it? I found it useful 62.11.172.91 (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

There was a RfC here and consensus was that due to a number of issues the community no longer wanted these videos on English Wikipedia.

As I was the primary person who had added these videos I removed them. They remain on Wikimedia Commons and you can see them here. Whether or not we will one day be able to address the issues sufficiently for similar videos to return I do not know.

I also believe they are useful... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for explaining 62.11.172.91 (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

again

asked to have this taken down[2] and left comment at ANI, JYT had begun [3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see

This essay. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please Help

I am officially asking for help from the wikipedia community. An Editor (who has twice flagged my home page as an attack page, so I will not name him here. Seems to be camping my edits (even on TALK PAGES for God's sake!!!) and reverting or criticizing them with very little to go on, other than (apparently) a distate of me garnered from a mistake I made years ago trying to delete a wikipedia category. He also holds cleear and apparently inviolable personal opinions on metallurgy and related matters. For the past year or more I have actually stayed clear of him and his "favorite, personally owned" feifdom pages and subjects. Recently he has decided to just offer snide remarks:

[like this one]

I have attempted to make personal contact through his home page, and he mostly just deletes it. He's even reverted changes I've put in my own home page because he considered them "attacks"! I would like it if someone in authority could please get him to back off. Any help out there?

I am completely willing to plead my case, and I'm open to any arbitration I can get. Let me know what to do - I'll do it!

Riventree (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI is were this stuff goes. But of course one always needs to be careful when they take stuff there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. By the way: massive encouragement to you on the awesome (far FAR better than mine) level-headed responses you give to some of the heckling you get on this page. Keep up the awseome attitude! Perhaps some will rub of on me.

Riventree (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

eduprogram

Hello, to follow up on User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_130#Courses_Modules_are_being_deprecated, this has been completed. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

I hope we can all learn from this recent incident, and understand that we all err — and sometimes we act in good faith for several years, for things to veer of in a different direction in the last minute.
We must however never lose track of the end-goal of providing a place: "in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."
Thanks, Carl Fredrik^talk 23:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Word of thanks

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		It's been a bitter saga, but you've ended it with diligence and grace. Thank you. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I definitely agree, as I already said there. You put up with a lot of crap (some of which seems to be ongoing above, here at your talk page), and you did indeed show grace in resolving the dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Some very vicious attacks, however you've maintained poise throughout(that's why you lead, we follow)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(+1) For all the grace, you've shown throughout the saga, despite the crappy hostility you've had to face....~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(+1) on record supporting Doc James's handling of a crummy situation ☆ Bri (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(+1) on record lifting Doc up as an example of how I wish I were in regard to criticism.

(+1 ) Screw those bullies - they had a chance to have their voice heard on the videos and they didn't bother to say anything, then they want to get a wild hair up their ass because they "had no say in the videos", please. It was a classic case of "IDontLikeItitis". You handled it way better than I did. I have half a mind to re-do those videos, with the text on the article page itself, verbatim, just to see if the same crew comes back and complains again. К Ф Ƽ Ħ 12:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Avner Halperin

Hi, Doc James. It has been a few weeks since I left you a message and wanted to reach back out to you. I know that someone like myself with a COI has no real standing to ask you about a status, but thought I would take a shot anyway. I just added to the Draft:Avner Halperin about his teaching at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and his research being cited almost 2,000 times. If you are so inclined, is it possible for you to take a closer look at the draft and let me know if it is suitable to be placed in the main space; or, what changes you would like to see to make sure that it meets Wikipedia guidelines? Thank you so much for your taking your time to help on this. --BennettInCA (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Was previously deleted. Will leave it to those who were previously involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Telegram (messaging service) page content updation

Dear James, I have added the below content on the Telegram (messaging service) page and I request you to tell the reason why it is no long present there

I have never edited the page in question. Would be best to ask the person who removed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This text you added though is off topic. "This caused inconvenience among users interested in chatting about cryptocurrencies and blockchain. Telegram has appeared as suitable platform for crypto-startups to engage crypto enthusiasts for hot debates" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)