Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

about Risperidone drug

hi, does the Risperidone drug can cure the patient ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9x (talk • contribs) 09:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about HIV

Hi James, I was verifying HIV/AIDS and faced with some ambiguous words and I think you can help me with this. It has been written in the article that HIV is transmitted via oral relationship with a very low probability (Ref.), and also it's not cleat that the same low probability has been caused by Oral relationship (Ref.). On the other hand, HIV can be transmitted via breastfeeding to the child. Now the question is, if HIV couldn't be transmitted by oral, how does a child be infected via being nourished by milk? I searched about that among the journals, but didn't find anything which could solve the problem. ●Mehran Debate● 10:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The newborn GI tract has different barrier properties from adult GI tract. This paper PMID 11140904 also emphasizes that mixed breast- and bottle-feeding may enhance risk above exclusive breastfeeding (other sources have supported this concept). -- Scray (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, your answer was helpful. I didn't know that GI tract of a newborn is different from a adult. ●Mehran Debate● 02:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes kids absorb antibodies from their GI tracts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You have made your 5th revert to osteoarthritis

"Would advice(sp?) that you change it back and get consensus."Sthubbar (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC) BTW, I'm really curious how you do your math, because there are only 2 reverts and 1` undid by sthubbar. How does 1+2=4?!

You are around 3 or 4. I have made three reverts not 5. Each bunch of edits is counted together. By the way the person wishing to add new content is the one that typically should be the one developing consensus before it is added when the changes in question are controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your question.

I asked the radiologist if I could post the MRIs on Wikipedia. He said "Sure, they're yours". But I have nothing in writing. And I note that there's no copyright symbol on the MRIs themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old wombat (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Your recent editing history at Breast Cancer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 32cllou (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I read AN3 and may need to use ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Breast Cancer. Thank you. —32cllou (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Did not realize that I had made more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. It appears that neither did the notice board [1]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification

AGK directed a comment for you here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we follow the secondary reference use of the terms alt med and dietary supplement

Doc James, Zad made a great suggest of following the usage of terms based on the secondary sources. So, for example, with this reference, [1] the authors use the word "dietary supplements" so it would go under that header. The article [2] uses the term "Alternative Medicine" so it would go under that heading. I understand in some cases if we have multiple references there may be conflicts and in those cases we can discuss on the talk page. Does this proposal work for you?Sthubbar (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually ended up re-organizing the content and agree Dietary supplements made better sense for the content, and made some other organizational changes to reduce the number of subheads. I also grouped things together more logically. Please review and let me know if you hate it. Zad68 19:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Dietary supplements are generally a type of "alt med" so we could have that as a subsection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Doc James, thanks. I feel vindicated and a sense of victory.Sthubbar (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure however that I would classify herbal remedies as dietary supplements. They should probably be separate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read full articles before reverting on osteoarthritis

Doc James, I have made many additions to the OA article. Before reverting, please understand.

I accept that the format and wording is rough. I don't want to spend too much time making things look pretty if you are going to come along an revert back to a much earlier time.
Please review the full text of the references I am providing. I think for each of the references I provided, the full text is available on Google Scholar
There are two reviews from Ernst, one in 2001 and one in 2011. I still have some work to consolidate the evidence between the two.
There still exists some conflicts, such as stinging nettle is listed in the first and last paragraphs as both promising and lacking evidence. I understand these type of issues need to be resolved looking at other studies so please don't revert based upon this issue.

Thanks for your consideration.Sthubbar (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Have adjusted slightly so that we can figure out which refs support which substance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

COI?

Would you consider a COI at alternative medicine? I think as a doctor in the mainstream medicine you are taught that alternative medicine is *usually* or *mostly* is not reliable. Most/majority of the mainstream doctors don't regard alternative medicine as anything useful. Thus your participation at editing any material related to the alternative medicine could be seen as COI, as you are a doctor of the mainstream medicine, and the current situation is that these two fields rather oppose each other, and not fulfilling each other (though exceptions do apply). It's loosely similar to a person who is working in a Linux developing team to tackle articles related to Microsoft. (To which he is very likely to be an opponent.) Ryanspir (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Does an agnostic have a COI when writting in faith articles? This proposal is rather non-sensical from my pov.--Garrondo (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
No I do not have a significant COI here or anywhere else. Some alt med has evidence for it some does not. These are the conclusions we present. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Ryan, I think you might be confusing COI and POV. COI means editing with some aim other than improving the encyclopaedia; Doc James does not, as far as I know, have anything to gain from discrediting alternative medicine.
As the COI policy says, "beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest." It is possible that being a doctor might colour someone's view of alternative medicine, but so - in one direction or another - would all kinds of experiences: everyone has a POV. The NPOV policy applies to content, not to editors: everyone, regardless of their own point of view, must do their best to keep a neutral one in articles. CarrieVS (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
"Beliefs and desires *alone*.." that is very right. But his view is indeed coloured and he doesn't disengage from it while editing alt med articles. He belongs to establishment of mainstream medicine that completes with alt med for customers. That is COI. Ryanspir (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been mentioned

Hi Doc, FYI you have been mentioned here and here (look at that second one especially). Zad68 02:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zad. Mostly just personal attacks. Trying to refer to a pamphlet from the Cochrane collaboration as an update of a systematic review simply is not true as you mention here.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Doc James

Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?

United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I just edit medical content really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

TM graph

Hi. I can't see any reason to leave this graph in, but perhaps I'm missing something. (I've removed it for now.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it basically shows that the difference between the techniques is none significant. No strong feelings either way at this point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Breastfeeding article

Hi there Doc, would you have any interest in looking at the Breastfeeding article's HIV section? As I say on the talk page, I believe that it is much too involved for the article and should perhaps even have its own article. I have been looking at current information and updated the WHO statement, but perhaps you may have some up-to-date thoughts about the "advice" that is offered in the article as well. I'm also going to ask WAID to take a look at it since she is frequently interested in woman's articles. Gandydancer (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree a few of the sections could use summarizing and splitting off. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:0
Thanks so much. Gandydancer (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

just fyi

Scarcely headline news, but just thought you might might like to catch this. Cheers, 86.164.171.247 (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Goodbyes

Regarding Dreadstar (talk · contribs), I think I understand your point - namely, that he's throwing stones from within a glass house, and that his own record of civility is not superior to or distinguishable from that of the people he's criticizing. But this is Wikipedia; it's what people do here (see #9). He's done this before; it's the classic GoodBye. He'll be back, likely within 2-3 weeks. In the meantime, just let it go. It doesn't help to pile on in the thread, and these sorts of histrionic departures are cries for attention and thus best handled by withholding attention. MastCell Talk 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks. I would imagine as much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Two weeks ago, I gave this advice to another editor [3]. The main problem with that advice was that I should have said when the internet was peat-fired steam-powered pneumatic tubes... Fladrif (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Common cold

Hi James, Could you please verify these resources and tell me which one is reliable or not? [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Thanks ●Mehran Debate● 07:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Would consider the last one the most reliable of the lot and in fact have a copy of the entire book. The rest not so much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it in PDF? If yes, can you send me that? ●Mehran Debate● 02:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Burn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Flash burn
Giardiasis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to IBS

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"Burn" page contrib.

Jmh649, thanks. This is my first edit on Wikipedia--I need to make a user page. I'm not a medical professional and must be careful changing any words. CtrlAltDel (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Cardiovascular Disease

Good question, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.104.32 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC) The paragraph, as written in this article, should convey the scientific consensus that dietary saturated fat is a leading risk factor for heart disease, and thus lowering it's intake has demonstrated it being effective. Beyond that, and possibly showing some modern diets which follow this, I don't understand the additional information which I think merely causes undeserved confusion to the reader.

The references presented in ref 47 simply pointed out that a diet high in refined carbohydrates (like table sugar and wonderbread) are bad for you. While important, I don't see how it creates a controversy. It's a no-brainer, but let's not hide a lie, that saturated fat IS NOT bad for you, between the two truths that sugar and white flour ARE bad for you. Ref 47 continues to play some clever wordsmithing in its abstract to create an atmosphere of controversy which does not really exist. "Replacing saturated fat with refined carbs is (problematic)." Well, ok, but how does this dispute that saturated fat is NOT a risk factor for heart disease? Where is the controversy? Replacing saturated fat with a gun to your head is also not advised, but it still doesn't change anything we know about saturated fat. We all know refined carbohydrates are bad for you, no one is arguing that. I'm certain Krauss is not trying to say if I replace all of my saturated fat calories with spinach (carbs) that I'm no better off simply because there lacks any epidemiological evidence to support this. OK, where is the epidemiological evidence for replacing saturated fat with shooting one's self in the head with a loaded gun? This is asinine. Krauss shouldn't be trusted either, more on that in a second.

On an aside, we both understand the troubling trend marketing of processed foods as low fat, while increasing sugar. Yes this is problematic, but this requires an amazing leap of logic to be used to discredit our current decades long understanding of saturated fat. Stamler's ref points this out, so the Krauss ref should be a non-starter for this alone.

It's worth pointing out that both of these refs are the work of Ronald Krauss, who is a member of the Atkins foundation with a vested financial interest in promoting fad-diets consuming lower carbohydrates, lower than most experts would say is healthy. He also takes funding almost exclusively from the meat and dairy industries. His meta study in reference 46 has been widely and largely discredited. It was shown to use clumsy testing in an attempt to dispute over 40 years of studies showing evidence to the contrary.

In the end, just because something is referenced, even in a journal, doesn't make it good encyclopedic information. There does not seem to be enough evidence to give credence to there being disputed controversy worth mentioning. There is also a separate wiki page for this 'controversy.' If it has to go anywhere, perhaps it should go there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.104.32 (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Add the your comments here [9]. Do you have a ref to support "the scientific consensus that dietary saturated fat is a leading risk factor for heart disease"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

Info box/Sick child image on Smallpox

I moved the info boxes to the beginning of the article per WP:IBX. The boxes are a good summary for the reader at the beginning of the article, which helps with understanding for non-medical readers. Also, it helps to keep the medical articles on infectious diseases consistent. And I noticed [10] this discussion higher up on the talk page about the sick child image. I think the image should stay in the article in that it clearly shows the lesions with the classic dimple. But it apparently, by the talk page discussion, does upset some editors/readers. This seems a good reason to keep the info boxes at the beginning of the article where they are meant to be anyway. In this way, readers learn something from the info boxes and see other images first. This allows them to gradually come to the more graphic image. If a reader then decides the image is upsetting and leaves the article, he/she will have at least gained some information about smallpox before leaving. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We typically put the disease infobox first. Feel free to propose on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I did comment on the article talk page. I came here as a courtesy because after reading the image discussion I saw you had strong feelings about it. And I also noted that you are a major contributor to the article. Not every reader who wants to learn about smallpox can tolerate that image as the talk page discussion shows. I also noticed that the image has been removed by editors but it's always reverted back. Moving it down in the article seems a reasonable compromise. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You could try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It might be more practical to find a better image. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
We can discuss on the talk page. IMO the image we have is excellent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC). 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.

 Ryan Vesey 03:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Enhanced external counterpulsation

Could you check the tone on this one? I'm not just referring to the use of "you" but the use of a generally didactic approach, and also the use of adjectives. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Could use some recent references as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assignments

I would very much appreciate your help (and talk page lurkers too) in drafting a new policy to deal with assignments, particularly student. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Assignments (student editing) and the draft at Wikipedia:Assignments. Thanks. Colin°Talk 10:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Dumb question from a non doctor Wikipedian trying to help medical English students

is "embryonic germ disc" the same as "Germ_layer"? One of my students chose the first as his topic for his Wikipedia article and after trying to understand what he wrote and failing (you can see it here User:Thelmadatter/Sandboxes_Group_2/Embryogenic_germ_disc) I went poking around to see if I could get a better handle on the subject and came across "germ layer" and other articles that seem to cover his topic.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be embryology and something I have not really looked at for more than 10 years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

High quality references

Hi Doctor, thanks for your suggestion on giving references.. though I am a non medical person from Chennai, I will sure try to give references as suggested. Thanks.Bilingual2000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Great thanks and welcome to WIkipedia. Both google books and pubmed can be useful for finding refsDoc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Flow of the material

CVD... I am trying to clear up text which doesn't well reflect refs, also the flow of the material. I answered your three questions, and corrected them accordingly. Getting into a revert war doesn't solve much, tell me what wrong with the flow change I presented. We can talk about the page until we are blue in the face, but the flow still doesn't read well. Other than that, and your three questions, I kept it basically the same.

Let continue on the talk page. Your last edits added plagiarism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Will

Just to let you know that I've asked here for an uninvolved editor to close User:Jmh649/Will Beback and give a neutral summary of the consensus. A few people mentioned perhaps proceeding with a request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, so it might be helpful to have a summary of the RfC for that. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I wake up every morning to the same question: When Will Will BeBack Be Back? Any answers? ```Buster Seven Talk 19:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I have heard nothing. It seems like he has managed to generate some serious enemies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, like to help with novel H7N9 influenza?

Hi Doc James,

Would you like to help with H7N9? This is the new one being monitored in China. So far, about 100 human cases with about 20 fatalies. Some question whether birds are the main reservoir. Also some question whether it can have difficult human-to-human transmission, like what might happen between family members, although really too early to tell either way.

-Cool Nerd (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes have seen some of the news on this. There are about 20 articles on pubmed but no reviews yet [11]. I usually wait for reviews :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fungal infection (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Ahead of schedule

Regarding my prediction, it looks like this particular histrionic "departure" was even shorter than I'd predicted. Or as a wise man once said, no matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to keep up. MastCell Talk 00:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Close. Jane Wagner, writing for Lilly Tomlin's The search for signs of intelligent life in the universe, "no matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up".LeadSongDog come howl! 04:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes not the least bit surprised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog: Oh man. I was thinking that Tom Lehrer had said that, but you're totally right. Thanks for the correction. MastCell Talk 16:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought at the time that the prediction erred on the long side. The two prior noisy retirements didn't even last 24 hours. I'm genuinely surprised that this one lasted as long as it did. But, there is this coincidence, which might explain things. Fladrif (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at FoCuSandLeArN's talk page.
Message added 17:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Request

I formally ask that you revert your unblock. — Ched :  ?  18:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You blocked someone indefinitely while providing NO difs for justification. Have you put anything together yet? I see that you have now put something together and I have restored a 72 hour block. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Just looking at the block log, you only gave him 3 hours to do so, and apparently he did not have the time to respond. This seems a bit hasty to me. --Rschen7754 19:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Your claim that Ched was involved

Hi, Doc James. Here, you cited Ched being "involved" as a reason he should not have blocked Fladrif, and here you repeated the charge of involvement a second time, on Ched's own page. How was Ched involved with Fladrif, please? You surely can't mean Ched's warning here? No, no, I can't believe that. Please provide a diff/s, here or on ANI, showing the involvement you claim. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This [12] is similar to the evidence used to state I was involved. Ched and Fladrif were involve in many of the same discussions including [13] and [14] on which they came out strongly on opposite sides. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
That's not what involved means. The worst part is that you used the term in Fladrif's block log to describe Ched's block. Bishonen | talk 10:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC).
James, I can't believe you are defending your misrepresentation of Ched's relationship to Fladrif. At first I thought it was an impulsive error that you would quickly correct but now I see that you are committed to this intentional falsehood.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It is sort of funny that those who are so up in arms about this whole case come and shoot pot shots at me with phrases such as "I can't believe you are defending your misrepresentation", "an impulsive error" and "committed to this intentional falsehood". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing funny about an Admin using false statements to justify his unilateral reversal of a legitimate block on an editor who he has a close association with. I respectfully suggest that you take this matter more seriously.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Keithbob this is the first time I have ever asked that someone not post on my user talk page but here goes. Please do not post on my talk page again. If you wish to spread negativity regarding me please do it elsewhere. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have reinstated the Indefinite Block for Fladrif and apologized to Ched. I commend you for these actions which demonstrate to me that you are taking your mistakes seriously and are willing to correct them. Well done! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A new ANI concerning yourself

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Questionable involvement by DocJames on Fladrif dispute--Penbat (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

All good

Thank you for the note Doc. I appreciate you following up on everything and being willing to review all the information. I apologize if I've ever been short or disrespectful to you. I really am grateful for all your efforts here. All my best to you and yours. — Ched :  ?  14:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need a nicer editing environment and that we need people to concentrate on content not contributors. IMO you handled this all very well so thanks for that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Doc, (for the sake of redundancy, I'm sure) I disagreed with the lowering of the block not because I think that Fladrif necessarily needed to be indeffed but because you, well, you know, and thanks for undoing that. My interest was in that db-attack attack, since it concerned matters I know little about. I wasn't even looking for a block, just for attention and discussion and, yes, some attention to their editing in other matters. Now, if you or anyone else wants to break a lance for Fladrif, I wish you godspeed in that effort--I don't like indef blocks any more than you do, I suppose. Thanks again, and take care, Drmies (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Columbia University Heart Courses Lectures

Hi Dr. James,

We added the below link from Columbia University Medical Centers Catch Up Heart Course to the heart failure page.

The course consists of video based lectures on latest updates in the field of cardiology, cardiovascular disease, etc. from world recognized faculty.

http://cme.columbiasurgery.org/grandrounds/archive?gnr=888538

Is there a reason that you do not want to include this valuable link from a leading academic institution? It appears that there is a link to eMedicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.84.106 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We do not typically link to lectures. They cannot really be collaboratively edited. And these are mostly discussion of single cases. You can ask for further opinions at WT:MED. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Your unblock of Fladrif

Doc, I'm really baffled that you unblocked Fladrif. I see that you guys are asking Ched to justify his actions, but the way I see the ones who are not acknowledging the evidence presented (such as yourself) have a burden of justification. Lots of evidence of persistent, apparently mean-spirited unprofessionalism by Flradrif has been presented. I tried to engage him in a discussion on it on my talkpage a few days ago. How many chances should he get? When does the civility policy get enforced? The attacks date back very far (I presented Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Fladrif at ANI) and obviously continue to this day. If I called a co-worker in my office "a mere child" and then told another he was doing a "hissy-fit", meanwhile calling others liars (an allegation I don't see as entirely justified, and generally an inappropriate way to describe misrepresentation or untruths in any case) in a heavily-emotional manner, I can ensure you that I would be told not so kindly to leave. Maybe I'm just used to working in a more professional environment than you guys, but I think my expectations are appropriate.

Another point is that this defense of Fladrif weakens the case for unbanning Will Beback, because it appears that the group which is working to unblock Will Beback does not have high standards for behavior - suggesting, to those who have done less background research, that Will Beback is little different from Fladrif. Reviewing the history, I do not see that at all - Will Beback appeared to be much more professional and civil. II | (t - c) 18:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restored a 72 hour block now that evidence has been provided. If an indefinite ban is desired it should come from the community and not a single admin. If an admin blocks someone they should provide evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that's reasonable and as I recall my own thoughts on previous community ban proposals, I was typically arguing for a more clear presentation. However, in this case you have a lot of prior experience and could therefore help fill in the details or offer a substantive opinion based on your experience. Instead you've chosen to remain silent on the substance and instead put up a procedural defense. I realize you're rather pressed for time, but if you ever do feel like sharing your thoughts on my questions ("How many chances should he get? When does the civility policy get enforced?"), I'm interested in hearing them. I don't feel like Wikipedia discourse should be at the level of a political forum or news article comments, with a lot of accusations and partisan bickering. II | (t - c) 03:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up, regarding the alleged personal attack by Fladrif about misrepresentation which you asked about: misrepresentation accusations are tricky, because sometimes they are true and sometimes they're not, and sometimes it is a mistake and sometimes it is a part of a pattern. But even if they are true, this is one of those things that is better concisely demonstrated than stated. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 (which I was involved in but did not lead) provides a pretty good model, although in that case the misrepresentation was extremely blatant. Collect your evidence and present it clearly, as it is presented in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence. One-off angry accusations of misrepresentation create more heat than light. How would you feel if I said, hey Doc, you're a chronic and blatant misrepresenter of sources and I present one example of a mistake (which you claim to be an accident) to prove it? Wouldn't feel very fair, would it? I feel like that has happened to me, in fact, and it still rankles me when I think about it. If you feel there's misrepresentation, it may be a decent idea to start filing these on a subpage on misrepresentation in TM, as was done for Jagged 85. Then pick through it to find the most clear pieces (do not just throw a laundry list up in an ArbCom case). The examples that I saw on the TM talkpage don't seem really flagrant; there seems to be some legitimate misrepresentations but it's subtle. Those aren't going to work well with ArbCom, especially this one. II | (t - c) 04:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that those sorts of comments are useless without difs to back them up. While Fladrif is deserving of a short block this was done without any evidence and was indefinite in lenght. If we are going to hand out incivility blocks there are a number more that should be banned. Do I get personal attacks? Many times and it continues on a regular basis even during some of these discussions. Evidence of Cheds involvement with Fladrif is provided above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As a concluding comment, thanks for keeping staying upbeat despite a lot of pressure. Wikipedia can be a tough on the psyche sometimes, and you're basically a rock around here so I hope you don't get too discouraged. And I recall that I've been in your position at least once, swimming against the tide for a more fair consideration of a ban or block or someone on the borderline. As far as your comment about "if we are going to hand out incivility blocks there are a number more that should be banned" I'm not so sure I agree with that, but Wikipedia certainly does have a tendency to make people's blood boil, which is all the more reason for us to try to keep things civil. Cheers, II | (t - c) 07:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ . PMID 20232616. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ De Silva, V (2011 May). "Evidence for the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review". Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 50 (5): 911–20. PMID 21169345. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_44&oldid=1142971223"