Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass Casualty Incident

Hello, have heard that you may be able to contribute some in-hospital aspects to the Mass casualty incident page that I've created. Would you be interested in making a contribution? As well, suggestions about improvements (other than the notable lack of citations) would also be appreciated as I believe that this can be at least a good-level article. Just out of curiosity, where in Canada do you work? Frmatt (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Expertise

Hi, James. Why do you claim expertise about the article "Rorschach test"? Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

When I was claiming expertise I was refering to evidence based medicine rather than the Rorschach per say. Editors interpretation of level 5 evidence (expert opinion) as I have stated previously in no way justifies the senzorship of images on wikipedia for medical reasons. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification for DocJames from Dr Placik (user otto placik)

I am a relative neophyte to the Wikipedia community and have run up against several obstacles and so I would like to make some clarifucations. Please excuse my rudimentary editing skills as I cut and paste to make my point.

In an earlier discussion to which you contributed, I have some comments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Private_practice_.22Before_.26_After.22_shots:

DocJames you seem to agree with user:Paravis above that "links to his personal pages must be removed" when referring to me Otto Placik and my images. However, I have removed all links while the user:Paravis you seem to agree with continues to blatantly have links on all his photos to a Dr. Michael Schwartz see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abdominoplasty_umbilicus_(belly_button)_reconstruction.jpg. I find this type of behavior dispicable and evidence that Pravis is operating in bad faith. How can he disparage me "keep people like Dr. Otto J. Placik from controlling and degrading the quality of this collaborative project" (his words) while he continues to attach links to a commercial website to each of his image contributions. Seems hypocritical to me! I would like your thoughts on Paravis and his contributions. 00:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Placik (talk • contribs)

  1. His link is barly passable. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Neuroblastoma

HI--hope you enjoyed your holiday! Hope you have a chance to peek at Neuroblastoma...not sure the history section is appropriate or complete. I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions. The other items have been addressed. Thanks for reviewing this article! DMLud (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Left notes on Talk:Neuroblastoma/GA1 as well. DMLud (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Wondering--have you had a chance to finish the review for neuroblastoma? Thanks. DMLud (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits to neuroblastoma! Big improvement! Does this complete the GA Review? DMLud (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Final_decision

Discuss

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

For the Committee MBisanz talk 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

More about splitting

Hi. :) I note that you recently performed a split of material to the article Aspirin poisoning (good call; perfectly ripe for division!), and I just wanted to drop you a note to point out a few things about the procedure. As Wikipedia:Split sets out, when we split material, we have to provide a direct link to the source article. This is necessary because Wikipedia's contributors do not release their material into public domain, but retain rights to authorship under the terms of our licenses, CC-By-SA and GFDL. This wikilink satisfies that requirement by allowing readers to access the history and see who contributed what and when. Usually, we put into the edit summary something along the lines of "Split from Aspirin". Then, we note the split as well in an edit summary at the source article. That would read like "Material split to Aspirin poisoning", in this case. This helps make sure that the article is not later deleted, as it cannot be as long as the article to which the material has been split remains. We also have an optional template for the talk pages of both articles at {{Copied}} (instructions for using it found there). I have fixed the problems with this split, but I wanted to let you know for future use. Thanks, and if you have any questions about this, please feel free to leave a line at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Does not make sense to you. Okay, I'll try to explain it better. :)
Most of our contributors realize that we can't copy text from books, magazines, or many web pages into Wikipedia articles because these are usually copyrighted. Many of them don't realize (including, at one point, me) that Wikipedia's text is also copyrighted. We're very used to thinking of it as the "free" encyclopedia. But if you look at the current Terms of Use at the bottom of every edit screen, you see that it says, "You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form." That includes if their contributions are copied from one article to another. The individual authors who contribute to Wikipedia agree to license their material under a very liberal license, but they still own the copyright. As long as we abide by the terms of the license, we aren't violating their copyright. If we do not abide by the terms of the license—which includes providing credit—we do. There's more about this at Wikipedia:Copyrights. As the terms of use note, a minimum credit supplied is a hyperlink or URL. This is why we satisfy attribution by leaving a note with a link to the location of the original article. Wikipedia's software preserves every edit history, which means that everyone has credit for his or her individual contributions. When we move material from one article to another, we need to maintain the edit history in the original article for so long as the moved material is still hosted on Wikipedia.
Please let me know if this is not any better. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

At User_talk:Deacon999 you indicated that edits to wp are in the public domain. This is not correct. It remains the copyright of the author, but is dual licensed under the GFDL or CC-BY-SA, as indicated directly below the edit box. This is why we care so much about keeping history on articles.LeadSongDog come howl 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Meant creative commons. Does the author have the right to remove content they have added?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean by remove. Insofar it is part of the normal edition process, yes, like anyone else ("I'm removing this material as I don't think it's good / appropriate to keep it in the article anymore"). Removal in the sense of rescinding his copyright ("I no longer wish to be associated with Wikipedia and demand every single of my contributions be removed") is however not possible, see WP:C#Contributors' rights and obligations:

"You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain so licensed until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires (currently some decades after an author's death)."

— WP:C (emphasis mine)
BTW, I still owe you a response. Haven't forgotten but still waiting for the license change to stabilize all of our processes. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Christianity

Hello Doc, I was wondering if you have a chance in the near future to ref those citations where you said on my talk page about Christian views and the right wing of western society on ADHD and amphetamines.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Human musculoskeletal system/GA2

Hey. Just pointing out the GAN you reviewed. It looks like nothing's happened in 1.5 months, so maybe it's time to fail it, or remind the user about it. Wizardman 04:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ADHD

I have left the swine flu article as MCOTW for a couple of weeks. I think it is now time to move on. According to the votes tally on WP:MCOTW, the ADHD page is the next candidate. Could you advise as to whether the recent edit wars in this article have now quietened down? If not, are there dispute resolution measures underway? JFW | T@lk 12:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In case jmh is still on some other continent, I'll say what I know. Case closed 14 July; one editor has a month to recruit a mentor, otherwise one will be appointed by arbcom. A couple of editors are on 1RR per page per week and all are admonished, advised & encouraged to play nice.
IMHO an influx of qualified and experienced editors just now would be just what the doctor ordered! Note that there are several related articles including Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies and Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Welcome, Hordaland (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Hordaland. Hope we can all move forwards.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There are still some issues that need to be ironed out at Arb, or at least commented upon. May I suggest that the ADHD page be 2nd in line? Let the dust settle and allow editors who feel that they have been frustrated in editing, to reassess the article and the atmosphere within the community.--scuro (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. New faces, a fresh look, would be great. Soonest. - Hordaland (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no disagreement that new faces would be a good thing. The article has undergone a MAJOR transformation over the last half year which I ignored because of editing frustrations during this transformation. In briefly examining the article recently, a number of problems with the article were noted on the talk page. Extra time would allow me to closely examine the article and make suggestions. If the goal is NPOV, is the request for a little extra time not reasonable? Such a concession would be appreciated.--scuro (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This is beginning to sound like ownership. It's Wikipedia's article, not just the 5 or so active (lately) editors' and not just yours, of course. You (and everyone) can make exactly the same suggestions if you're one of ten, as you can if you're one of five. - Hordaland (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are concerns that the content which LG and myself have added is fringe. Having a number of physicians join the editing will quickly sort this out. I have no idea why you want to keep other physicians and scientist from editing the ADHD page. A bunch of smart people who understand the literature one would think could easily straiten the whole page out.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I have made a request, please lets not interpret it any other way. There isn't closure with Arbitration in my mind, so a request for a little more time was made. I'd like to be part of the process and I'd like to give my best effort to improve the page. Such an allowance would be very much appreciated. Would you reconsider my request?--scuro (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the request that's being asked for here? Nja247 13:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand either. A little more time for what exactly?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nja and Doc, do you really not know what the "request for a little more time" is all about? I thought WhatamIdoing gave the definitive answer here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop#Maid service - Hordaland (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a courtesy thing. It is working in "good faith". If someone has a need, then accommodate that need if possible. I've explained my reasoning above.--scuro (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy for what? Your reasoning makes no sense.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"sedentary behavior associated" kids

Thanks. I googled the above and found not only that article but:

  • "sedentary behavior associated with overuse of technology such as watching hours of TV or playing computer"
  • "sedentary behavior associated with a very low energy expenditure" (duh!)
  • "decreases in sedentary behavior associated with the highest levels of physical activity" (duh!)
  • "increase in sedentary behavior associated with television viewing"
  • "The remote control ... partly responsible for the increase in sedentary behavior associated with television viewing"

Seems the topic is "in". Not too impressed, if they compared the kids only to each other and not each to him/herself on different days. - Hordaland (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I have made a block request against you here. ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jmh649 --scuro (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I like your style!

I just read in the news media about how you had the courage to add the other nine public domain images to Rorschach test. I applaud your actions!

I see that quite a few people are upset with you. Well, I can certainly relate to that. However, I like to think that if someone's additions aren't stirring up at least some controversy, then they are not being creative enough or original enough in their way of thinking.

If it wasn't for people like you, wikipedia would not be anywhere nearly as enjoyable to read as it is.

Grundle2600 (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks appreciate the comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at LjL's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Old GARs

You seem to have a number of old GARs left open, which can be found amongst those listed here. If possible it would be good if you could go through and close/resume them as you see fit - rst20xx (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: ADHD

I appreciate the offer, but no thanks. I already know the thing is genetic. There's no way it could not be genetic given how it runs in families.

It is muitifactorial. All admit it has a genetic comment. This is different than saying it is purely genetic.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mingele

Seriously, I did not mean anything personal about you. I just think your argument of unrestrained reporting of knowledge poses some serious ethical dilemmas. Ward3001 (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a solution that would be acceptable to both sides, but there have been a number of creative solutions proposed. We never know; some ingenious new editor may come up with the perfect solution. Ward3001 (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding test materials

Hi James, I gather you are on a mission at the moment to put test materials onto wiki. I would plead with you to reconsider this. The materials themselves are unnecessary, as there are other ways to provide information about the tests. I really do feel the comparison is to medications - we can provide information without providing easy access to meds themselves, and the stimulus material is like the meds. As to the argument that the information is already out there, you know that putting it on wiki increases the access - that is the point, otherwise why get so excited about one million hits? This will affect the ability to give these tests, and so others will have to be given. Isn't you main mandate patient care? Why switch that off when you go on wiki? Please find other ways to create your legacy.--Vannin (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychological tests on Commons

I thought you might be interested to know I've created a new category about Psychological tests on Wikimedia Commons, on which I'm trying to gather all the Commons (or other free) images I can find of or relating to psychological tests, and you might perhaps help spotting more relevant images to add. --LjL (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Glascgow Coma Scale

James, the GCS is not an analog to a neuropsychological test. The GCS is a rating system in which the rated behaviors cannot be mediated voluntarily; i.e. if the patient has suffered sigfnificant impairment, having seen the GCS on wiki is not going to cause them to know where they are, the date, etc. They are not thinking "oh, i must withdraw from painful stimuli" - no, they either do or don't reflexively in that particular moment. Neuropsychological tests are not behavioral observation rating systems like that - they involve stimuli - mostly novel stimuli; and keeping the stimuli novel is key to measure what the test is supposed to measure. Observing behavior and asking someone the date, their name, etc. right after a car wreck is far different than outlining a patient's cognitive strengths and weaknesses. And novel stimuli are important because if a patient has seen they Wisconsin, for example, their strong performance on the measure does not mean that their ability to shift cognitive set is intact - it may simply mean that they had seen the test and had heard of the rules before. When we measure things like memory and executive functioning, any prior test exposure can affect test validity. If you had heard a story given on a memory measure previously, suffer a a mild head injury, and are tested on that story - your performance will likely be higher than expected (depending on the extent of the injury and time since exposure). And I see that you doubt others examples as "far fetched" but i know a psychologist who suffered from a brain injury and because they had obviously seen the tests before, a neuropsychological battery was basically useless in outlining their strengths and weaknesses (and thereby assisting in cognitive rehab. My other issue is that you are not an expert in psychology/neuropsychology/neurology/psychiatry, yet your actions imply that you believe that you are (and at one point, you seem to have implied to Vallin that you were "in the field"). I assure you that i will not quibble with the finer aspects of physical medicine because i realize that what i do not know far exceeds what i do, and would possibly lead me to faulty conclusions. I appreciate that you seem to have a wide range of interests (and a great deal of time), but it really is hard to grasp some concepts that are out of one's area of daily expertise (for example, you seem especially interested in ADHD - i did not know an er doc delved into such issues). I have refrained from your talk page because of your previous tendency to dismiss the arguments of others or ignore their direct questions entirely - but since you have written on mine, I would at least ask you to acknowledge that others may have a more nuanced point of view with larger interests in mind than simply keeping tests a "secret." I simply would like to have measures that continue to be valid in measuring what they've always measured (and for example, look at the research for the Wisconsin - it is oustanding; same goes for most of our common neuropsych measures). And if you think neuroimaging can do that - one person's right frontal lesion may lead to a different set of behaviors and lost abilities than another's right frontal lesion - for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

James, again, you made a statement, yes. But you, as always, failed to address any of the issues posed with anything even resembling a substantive debate. You make one or two sentence statements, and never make available your point of view in anything but black or white. Do you even hear what others are saying - can you even acknowledge that there are different, yet valid points of view? The world is not only black and white, there are grays as well, that you seem not to fully appreciate or acknowledge. And with regard to expertise, it was not meant personally - it was meant that it is difficult to appreciate the damage being done to these tests if you do not have first hand experience with them or have not actually seen them utilized with a patient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


James, i initially responded to your post on my own talk page not realizing that i was not on yours. I wrote:


James, none of this is meant as personal, although you seem to have become quite personally involved in some of this. I am sorry you have been saddened by all of this; i do not believe i have been less than civil (and certainly not "hateful"). Do not mistake substantive critiques of your arguments as being personal in nature. One of my difficulties is that you have not addressed some of the more pressing concerns I have brought up. For example, you previously mentioned the Rorschach was specifically important to have the images in the entry due to it's popularity. I find it difficult to accept such an argument with something like the Wisconsin or Rey-O. I asked you this earlier, has a layperson even heard of these instruments. Of course not. In many ways, these tests really don't even merit a comprehensive entry (you most certainly would not find them in a bound encyclopdia). And just because you can find something on google (and you have to put some effort into even that) doesn't mean that it's okay to put it in wikipedia. I have not personally removed any material, but am against putting most of our test methods and stimuli on because they directly impact our ability to care for our patients. Simple. As. That. Really. It is. I promise. I can go on and on. And no wikipedia policy comes close to that for me. And i have a hard time imagining the person who does not at least strive to understand this in more detail before behaving in such an assured manner about such issues (at minimum, talk with some of the neuropsychologists at your university about this over a few lunches to maybe gain a personal appreciation for this - maybe even visit their lab/clinic - and yes, they will likely be more than willing to show you around and talk about what it is they do - most thoroughly enjoy doing so). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not the one deal in personal insults and legal threats.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

More distractions. James, you can look at all of my posts. Never have I personally insulted you (and on my talk page, you acknowledged that I had not) or EVER mentioned legal threats. I think you must be mistaking me for someone else. Now, with that said, maybe we could talk about the initial topic (how the GCS does/does not represent an analog for tests). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Obesity

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Wiki emma johnson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Gloabl Warming

Hello Jmh649!

You can´t blame the fat people for the global warming.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/04/rejection-of-science-squared.html http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/07/blame-fat-people.html

I think you should remove it from the Obesity article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.131.13 (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have once however it was replaced.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

regardless of health organizations?

Hi JMH, do you really want to put your name next to something that says to do something regardless of what health organizations say? Is this going to be good for your career? Are you sure that you want to be a leading force in reducing rehabilitation services (which is what will happen if psychological tests are made invalid by the exposure of the stimulus materials)? --Vannin (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Vannin none of your arguments are valid. I am very happy to have my name attached to the global distribution of scientific information. I am proud to contribute to an encyclopedia which attempts to the provide the breadth and depth of human knowledge to the world at large. I find your position exceeding anti scientific and anti intellectual.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Er, "exceedingly", intellectual. Spoiling tests used in scientific research by widely distributing their questions and answers to the general public is hardly advancing science.Faustian (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes well than continue to pretend that computers have not yet been invented and we have not yet reached the 21st century.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
To Jmh649: illegitimi non carborundum. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I just watched your CBC interview. It is indeed ironic that the psychologists' complaints have caused the Rorschach blots to be more widely viewed (the Streisand effect). I see that you've shaved. Perhaps you should update your photo? ;-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the comments.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey James, been a while since I've spoken to you in a non-editing context, how you holding up? This whole dilemma with the Rorschach article can't be easy for you, nor the publicity you've received on and off-wiki. Thanks for your continued efforts in helping free information to the public. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Doing well. It has been all a bit much. Many thanks for the kind words.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Saw today's NY Times article... I very much hope that doing the right thing on Wikipedia does not lead to serious repercussions. You have done the right thing, of course; the irony is in the ignorance of the folks who believe they have a right to control content on Wikipedia and the behavior of others... Each protest that hits the newspapers makes the outcome they fear (wide publicization of the test) more strongly irrevocable. Nathan T 15:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This is unfortunately becoming personal. I however beleive in what I am doing and am willing to stand up for what is right. The psychological profession has brought this upon themselves and is not in anyway looking the better for it. Paternalism went out of vogue decades ago. Anyway appreciate the word of support.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Neuroblastoma

any thoughts on finishing the review? Thanks DMLud (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, neuroblastoma is listed as GA but wondered if your reassessment was finished. Thanks DMLud (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_4&oldid=1142971208"