This is an archive of past discussions about User:Doc James. 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.
Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.
You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.
Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.
If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.
Please do these steps as soon as possible
First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.
Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:
Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).
After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)
As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.
Communication and keeping up to date
In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:
The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadorsconnect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.
Ambassador training and resources
We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)
Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.
The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.
Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!
I understand that peer-reviewed articles are preferable, but how exactly is the National Center for Biotechnology (NCBI) a "poor" source. I see no rule stating that ALL references must be peer-reviewed, and in this case the study was published at a reputable source, so I don't understand how you can justify reverting the edit I made. LiamSP (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi Liam, Doc didn't say the source was "poor", he said that you need to use secondary sources. The source you added was an individual study, a primary source. We need to be using secondary sources, like reviews, meta-analyses and statements from major medical organizations. Zad6818:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
(Talk page stalker.) You can "delete" it by removing it, but it's still in the history. The only way to delete something is if, for example, someone posted your social security number or something you don't want disclosed (like your IP address, perhaps) and then you request Wikipedia:Oversight. You can use an automatic archive if your talk page becomes long.
In response to your question I'll post the list of Committee tasks from the Meta page.
"1. Provide feedback on grant proposals: Check on proposals submitted to the IdeaLab and current proposals area, help to improve proposals and projects for which funding is sought, and ensure that sufficient information is provided and that goals and estimates are realistic.
"2. Evaluate finalized proposals: Review finalized proposals and community input, and score proposals according to rubric determined by selection criteria.
"3. Recommend proposals for funding: Recommend a shortlist of proposals for funding based on the available budget and projects."
welcome to the most biased article at wiki :). I think nccam statements contradicting fda should be removed; a section about silver sol, the only fda-approved cs for external use added; cochcrane reviews prior to 2009 removed because its the year when fda approved the cs gel and prior to that there weren't any reliable data for wound management with cs. The category added to medicine and high class of importance because its a new vector in antimicrobials. Ryanspir (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! do you mean the ones using just DOI? If you go to the References section and click "edit" you can edit the template they expand to. Or would you prefer the templates to be copied into the host article? Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI13:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Dropped you a line
Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Nice to see you are still around. I do not know how long would it take to update the MS article, but as soon as it is finished I will contact you. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Atrial Fibrillation Edits
Hello Dr. James Heilman-
I made some edits to both the Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Atrial Fibrillation wikipedia listings earlier to link back to the Heart Rhythm Society's website (hrsonline.org), that were recently denied. I would like to help share the hard work that our organization has been doing in both the overall public awareness, as well as provider and patient resources that we have been developing. If you wouldn't mind helping, we would appreciate it. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding this request.
The Heart Rhythm Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Rhythm_Society) is a member driven non-profit organization thats mission is to improve the care of patients by advancing research, education and optimal health care policies and standards.
In no way is the Heart Rhythm Society a charitable organization, our main purpose is be the leading resource to individuals who specialize in cardiac rhythm disorders.
Boilerplate:
The Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) is a leading resource on cardiac pacing and electrophysiology. This specialty organization represents medical, allied health, and science professionals from more than 70 countries who specialize in cardiac rhythm disorders HRS delivers programs and services to its membership based on its current Strategic Plan under the guidance of a Board of Trustees. Members and staff adhere to the HRS Code of Ethics and Professional Standards.
Strange:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afib
We are mentioned here under Reference 2 and one of our competitors is mentioned under Reference 7 and should be considered in the same classifications that you would label us in. It is still confusing why I cannot link the text Heart Rhythm Society back to HRSonline.org or even add our society as an external link without being denied. We are not trying to own the issue, but instead give the reader more available content to browse.
I'm wondering if MEDMOS should no longer encourage DMOZ links. It seems to me the Open Directory Project hasn't been much alive for years. In particular, using an unspecific DMOZ category, like you did with this edit isn't much use. If a person wants to know more about seizure types, a general DMOZ topic of "epilepsy" isn't the fastest way and could lead to all sorts of less desirable websites. Since we already have the DMOZ link to epilepsy at the epilepsy article, I don't see any value in repeating it for other related sub-topics. It seems to me the DMOZ link was always a cop-out of taking responsibility for finding and selecting high-quality links, if any. After, all, nobody needs us to provide external links for any article when Google generally does a fine job. What do you think? Colin°Talk21:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I am happy with nothing. I am simply unhappy with charities thinking we are a good method to promote themselves without improve the content on Wikipedia and strongly believe we should not be a collection of external or internal links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hepatitis C - Heathcare exposure - change request revisited
A change was requested and granted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hepatitis_C&action=edit§ion=12). The text, however, is still unchanged as follows: "... decreasing the risk from one in 200 units of blood[24] to one in 10,000 to one in 10,000,000 per unit of blood ...". I would not notice it, were I not localizing it - and it is really hard to make sense.
Hi,
As I've noted on the Migraine talk page, I'm happy to see the link go somewhere else. What I don't approve of is people playing editor simply by taking down links because they don't approve of the website. The information in the article is 100% accurate. Please take the time to check such things before you react based purely on personality. This is the reason why the number of genuine Wikipedia editors are declining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlepils (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
But this source is just one of the sources. Fda is considered as an ideal source, yet their clearance of cs gel didn't find its way into the article. And so are 6 pubmed publications i have submitted. Zad said first two are primary, third is secondary and didn't comment upon the other 3. Isn't a balanced article shall incorporate all views? Ryanspir (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Pretty sure Ryan's talking about this 2009 FDAEPA approval for American Biotech Labs' silver-containing "ASAP-AGX-32" surface disinfectant product, which has been attempted to be used several times at the article to support content like, "Liquid sprays containing silver nanoparticles may be used as a hard-surface disinfectant." The FDAEPA approval is for this one product only and does not mention "nanoparticles." The objection has been that a single product's FDAEPA approval should not be used to make a general statement like that. Zad6816:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
All the statements in that FDAEPA document are about "this product" ASAP-AGX-32. Ryan will have to confirm if this is the document he's talking about. Zad6816:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad is mistaken as it often happens when he is discussing with me. :) agx product is approved by epa, not fda. I wasn't refering to it though. I was refering to the fda cleared gel which is 24 ppm. The info and links to fda are on the article's talk page. but since zad is here, i would like to ask him what about the other 3 pubmed studies out of 6 to which he didn't comment yet. Ryanspir (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Woops, sorry about that, the AGX product document is indeed the EPA not FDA. As Doc said, you need to provide the link. Zad6816:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
the links
the link to the fda and news were on a talk page, but especially kind editor removed them in order to not corrupt the minds of the editors. Search for fda approval/clearance asap gel for wound care on fda.gov and in the news. Its not about what i wish to support with it. I just would like it to be summarized per wiki policy in the article. Ryanspir (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Would you like voluntarily revert your last revert? I'll wait a bit to let you reply before submitting report to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (new section). Ryanspir (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
::Hey Ryan. I am currently blocked and thus unable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I have followed: "You must notify any user you report. You may use { {subst:an3-notice} } to do so." That's what I did. Sorry if I did something wrong, but I'm still waiting for your reply, shall I report or you will undo? Ryanspir (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure A couple of things. One is that their is consensus for my reverts here [2] with three editors supporting the current situation and just you opposing. One typically needs consensus to change the article not to keep it the way it is.
The exact line is "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period".[3] I appreciate the heads up as it appears we where coming close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
You are right. Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Thanks for the heads up again. The thing is Wikipedia is based on consensus. And you have NO consensus for your change. But I shall leave this to someone else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
HIV/AIDS
Hi Doc, I'm going to expand "AIDS" in Persian Wikipedia and probably make it FA. Since there are a few Farsi RS about AIDS, I have to translate the English article with all the citations. But first of all I must ascertain whether the citations are really correct or not, it means that I should check all of the sources and verify its contents.I don't know how I can access to the journals, and most of the references are journals, would you please guide me how to access them? Regards ●MehranDebate● 14:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote my question on Ocaasi talk page. I saw your link and it sounds surprising for me. In case of HIV/AIDS, I almost translated the whole article and just about 30% of it has remained. In fact, the translating process is not difficult as much as citing is. Anyway I would be very happy if I can do any contributions to this project. I'll start my contributing soon after I finished the HIV/AIDS. Thank you very much for your guidance ●MehranDebate● 19:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I sent you an email. You can send me that bunch of content and I'll submit them in Persian Wikipedia.
P.S: Did you participate in writing HIV/AIDS and make it GA? Or do you know who wrote the references of the article? It's enough for me if I know it has been written by a reliable person and I won't verify the citations if I know that they're really correct.
Kindly take a look at the Issue section in my talk page. Shall I next time reply on your talk page as your signature suggests? Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Medical uses of silver.
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Hi. You might remember I posted on Ryanspir's talk page about the other editors leaving us to it for a bit. That ... basically hasn't happened, and you're the only one not actively participating. I'm not saying you have to come back, if you'd rather stay out of it that's fne, but if my comment was the only reason you're staying away, then please come back and give some input. (I think we're making a little progress - baby steps.) CarrieVS (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suicide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caucasian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Yes everything but the rhythm puzzles. Many thanks for taking this on :-) Wow 15 Gbs. Other organizations really do love collaborating with Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
In case you missed above message....just a friendly reminder. I need a response. If its fine, I can begin upload. I can't clean them up much more.Smallman12q (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Doc. Consensus was reached to remove the disputed text "Silver preps deliver inactive metallic silver ions". I hope you will read the discussion in Talk (Section : Silver colloids, ions, ingestion and antibacterial properties) particulary Desotos's final para that provides greater detail about the reference. Cheers. Blakebeau (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know how to link to a Talk section. I'll try and find out, but in the meantime here's Desoto's comment about the reference...
"I have now read the article in full ("So what if you are Blue"). The article is, indeed, about wound dressings, but in the introduction the authors make the quote about CS that we have in the article. They do not reference the statement, and there is no information in the article to back it up. In addition, the article is really a case report and is labeled as such by the journal. My opinion is that this is a very very weak source, the quotation is in the Introduction section, the article is a primary source (Case Study), and the first author is a medical student (not that there is anything wrong with that) and the citation lists only 18 sources. Given these reservations, I suggest that we delete the quote and reference.Desoto10 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Blakebeau (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
References
James, thank you for the advice on identifying reliable sources, specifically for medical pages. I understand why these references require additional scrutiny, thanks for your guidance OscarK878 (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless your edits reduced rather than added to the utility of the article hypertension. Editing guidelines that have that effect are questionable. The "Well" blog on the The New York Times is an excellent source, and the book by Mann is appropriate further reading. User:Fred BauderTalk17:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Would disagree. Even the review you use is a little old. We have some excellent recent guidelines on the management of hypertension. We should be using those more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
If there are some excellent recent guidelines on the management of hypertension why did the article before I edited it lack the basic information I added? Do the guidelines you suggest contain this information? What is the reason for low quality? User:Fred BauderTalk13:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Also what is it you disagree with and why? For example, can you give a good reason why Mann's book is not appropriate further reading. Why is a blog by medical writer which cites a review not an appropriate source? By the way, making trouble over New York Times articles disrupts my editing routine which nearly always begins with a NYT's article of some sort. BTW I signed up for the Tripdatabase and found some useful material. User:Fred BauderTalk14:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
We do not use any blogs as references as they are just not reliable enough. And why would we link to that book? I am not sure what it has going for it. I have seen many errors in the popular press and all these need to be replaced by better quality sources. Often the popular press is just a copy and pasted version of Wikipedia :-) Jacob updated the reference you provided further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
