User talk:Doc James/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rorschach

Hi James, I've just warned Faustian that he risks facing admin action if he continues to comment on your personal or professional life. If he does it again, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me or another admin know, so we can take action. If you avoid commenting yourself on these issues, or responding in any way, it will help to take the heat out of the situation. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

James, it would be better if you would not comment further on Faustian's posts. He has been blocked. If another admin sees fit, he may be unblocked. But what is needed now is a period of calm, for the sake of the article and its editors, you and Faustian included. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Award

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your valor in defense of information on the ten inkblots in Rorschach test despite the hateful inquiries and outright attacks by your colleagues. You are truly a banner and a shield for the cause of free knowledge. Ipatrol (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks appreciate it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned GA Review

You did the initial review of Pacemaker syndrome on June 9 and then made no further edits to the review. Since the review has been ongoing for almost three months now, I think it would be a good idea to make a final assessment and close the review as either a pass or a fail. Three months is a tad long for a GA review to take place. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you?

In the page HIV you appear to have made a Revision as of 12:05, 6 August 2009. You added text and some references. Several of those reference tags, <ref name=Clerici /><ref name=Morgan /> and <ref name=Campbell /> appear to be causing cite errors. Could you please go back and fill out the full sources to fix the cite errors. Thanks. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

Exquisite-folder4.png 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/ADHD.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:35, 17 September 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.

Arbcom

You are mentioned in an arbcom request for modification. Fortunately such requests should not be as prolonged or as indepth as the main arbcom as it is just a request for an ammendment. Unfortunately scuro's latest comment on wiki med collaboration project has made me feel that it is time to bring this to the attention of the arbcom.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_ADHD Other issues can be mediated but this one I feel is one that needs arbcom intervention.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of a NEW request to amend ArbCom case

A new request for amendment of the ADHD remedies has just been filed. This one asks for additions to Remedy 3) Scuro placed under mentorship. This notification is being added to the talk pages of scuro, Literaturegeek, Jmh649, Unionhawk and WhatamIdoing. - Hordaland (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hepatitis B

Sorry, wikibreak, replied.[1] ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Decompression sickness

Thanks for your improvements to Decompression sickness. I have a couple of questions though: Is the publication date for "Rosen's emergency medicine" really 2010? and is there a distinction between "hyperbaric oxygen therapy" and "hyperbaric oxygen treatment" that is important in this context? --RexxS (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Ganfyd" AfD

Hi, James. I have submitted "Ganfyd" to AfD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yellow fever

Hi you delisted yellow fever from a GA in June. Since then it has been changed quite a lot, could you take a look to see if it meets GA standard now and maybe provide some more specific pointers as to how it can be improved. You said that it should be structured as per WP:MED but this links to a wikiproject so I'm a bit confused! Thanks Smartse (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote the german version of the FA article this fall and a friend translated it to english. I wanted to work on it some more but eventually FA is the goal. I will talk to you again when I believe that the time has come. thanks for waiting. --hroest 12:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

English mistakes

Unfortunately I do not speak well english (I'm taking lessons), if you find mistakes in my edits you can remove them (but of course without changing the meaning). Thanx!--158.194.199.13 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bolognia push 2009

Would you consider making sure wikipedia has articles on every dermatologic condition. There are many new articles and redirects to be made, and we at WP:DERM are looking for more help! I can e-mail you the login information if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite. Only however have a passing interest in dermatology. Specifically how it related to emergency medicine. So much work to be done so little to time. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I could send you the login information, and you can see if anything in the book sparks your interest? ---kilbad (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay email it to me :-) Currently directing most of my time to the leading preventable causes of death: obesity, smoking, gastroenteritis, suicide, motor vehicle collisions etc.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Suicide

Hi James, would you have a look at the changes I made to your changes at Suicide, if you get a chance, please? I simply couldn't read the map and chart at 180px (current default for thumbs) - even with my best glasses. MOS:IMAGE gives guidance on the exceptions where forced size is appropriate (e.g. detail in maps and charts), but I'm not sure if the 300px I set is too big. See what it looks like on your screen and revert me if you prefer a smaller size, I won't be offended :) --RexxS (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your note at WT:Verifiability

Perhaps you meant this edit to be at WT:WikiProject Viruses? Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioned

at the bottom of the ADHD talk page. Cheers. - Hordaland (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks H. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Two barnstars

Press barnstar.png The Press Barnstar
For your contributions which lead to extensive media coverage. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Homemadebarnstar.png Home-Made Barnstar
For your perseverance in multiple difficult articles and topics and your ability to think clearly and rationally outside of the box and do what is necessary to resolve disputes. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
LG many thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Post-traumatic stress disorder world map added to PTSD article

Excellent addition. I've never seen anything like this! As a psychotherapist specializing in PTSD (who has committed to elevating the quality of Wikipedia's PTSD article), I find this map and the data on which it is based revelatory. A major find. I offer my profound thanks to all involved the in extended chain of communication and effort which has resulted in the appearance of this map in the PTSD article.

I do have one concern, however. An "A-class" article needs obvious, quality sourcing. I find the sourcing of this map to be of good to excellent quality (once it's found, and it took me a number of minutes to do it), but it is NOT obvious enough, I think. I think the map needs to have a footnoted attribution just like the other content in the article.

So, I'm presently working providing this. By the time you read this, I may have a solution in place at the article. I've very interested in your comments about all this. Again, my concern is only this: the degree to which the lay reader of the article, finding the map to be of interest, can quickly validate it by locating its source(s).

I look forward to reading your comments. TomCloyd (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you've beat me to the punch (I got called away briefly), and have artfully solved my problem. The attribution is now quite obviously of high quality. I'm completely satisfied.
Your comment about having new access to updated datasets is exciting. I'm very pleased to hear that you plan on updating the map (when time permits). In truth, having ready access to this data in any form, at the PTSD article is such a jump forward that the question of data currency seems rather trivial, especially when one considers that there is little reason to think that disease rates would change much over the time periods involved.
What I DO have concern about, especially with mental health disease rate data, is data quality. Example: what in the world do we possibly have on which to base estimates of PTSD prevalence for India, or the Congo? Fascinating question. I trust the WHO to do the best it can, but data quality questions will be with us for a long time, I suspect, given that such questions remain legitimate for all first-world countries. An imperfect world, with plenty of work remaining, for those who will choose to do it.
Again, thank you so much for your very significant contribution! In the time that I've been involved with this article, this is the most important contribution I've monitored. TomCloyd (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't have my hands on any review of data quality relative to estimation of mental illness prevalence by country, but this much I'm sure of: In the USA, large scale structured samples have been periodically drawn from the national population, then used as the basis of rate estimation. It's a careful logical process, a process which is available for public review (due to extensive publication - I'm referring primarily to the National Comorbidity Survey.
I have NO reason to think such sample data exist, especially by gender, for most countries of the world. This makes the logical process - the "Methods Section" producing the WHO dataset even more critical. I'm making a note to study up a bit on this question. An immediate concern of relevance is that the prevalence rates for PTSD may be higher in the USA due in part to better data - better reporting, if you will. But...without better familiarity with the estimation methods producing the WHO dataset I simply don't know.
By the way, I now give credit to you, on my talk page, for the link box which appears at the top - it ought to look rather familiar. TomCloyd (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Continuing payoff for your calling my attention to the DALY data on PTSD - I have added a comparative table to the PTSD article. The table, at present, offers support for some assertions about which regions of the world are most and least affected by PTSD. I hope this evening to add gender data for the same 25 countries. This sort of international comparison is something I've never before seen anywhere (perhaps I've lived a sheltered life!).
I also felt that the Disability-adjusted life year article was a bit murky, and have worked on it a bit, adding a reference to the PTSD table as an example of the utility of the metric. TomCloyd (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about data used for the map you recently added to the PTSD article

James, while working on the DALY rate table I have constructed for the epidemiology section of the PTSD article, I realized that there are two possible problem with your map, as it presently exists:

1. I added the word "rate" to the title very recently - but before I realized that the source documents provide data for "DALY" and "DALY rate", as well as age-adjusted versions of each. I have tried to figure out the difference between the "DALY" and the "DALY rate" statistic, and so far have failed to understand it (clarify it if you can!). For my table, I'm using "DALY rate", if only because the statistic seems consistently larger in magnitude, and I find that subjectively more credible. Not great reasoning, but the best I can do until better understanding arrives.

SO THE QUESTION IS THIS: Is my addition of "rate" to the title flatly wrong? I simply don't know. I hope you do. Tell me if I should remove "rate" and I will, with apologies. I thought I knew what I was doing, until I looked more closely at the source tables.

2. I strongly believe that we should be using age-adjusted data, and conspicuously do so in my table. I don't know if that is the case with your map, however. If not, possibly that should be indicated, and a note made to do so in the new version you said you're working on.

You can reply here if you like, as I'll be watching this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcloyd (talkcontribs) 08:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll give a quick reply. The difference between DALY and DALY rate is simply that DALY rate = (total) DALY / total population. As for the age-adjustement, yes the data of the map is age-standardised. /Lokal_Profil 23:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'd still like to find a statement from WHO verifying this (I've looked and haven't yet found it), although I strongly suspect you have it exactly right. As for the labeling of the map, because of my background in population anthropology, and my appreciation of the critical importance of getting one's data right in demography and epidemiology, I have to say that mis-labeling the map in the PTSD article is not an option. Either it's right or it's wrong, and wrong is not acceptable. A-class articles don't contain such mistakes, and I'm intent on achieving an A-class rating for this article. Will attend more to this matter later today, along with some others. TomCloyd (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way medicine does not have a formal A class system in place.
Actually they do - here. The problem, however, is that PTSD is not a medical "dis-ease", in that it's not organic in etiology, nor is it treatable with pharmaceuticals (symptom management is possible, but that's not treatment - more on this later). It's a pure learning disorder. Only the most psychologically-informed medical folks could really move this article into the highest rating. Even in psychiatry, few fall into this category. I have yet to meet a psychiatrist who specializes in PTSD, although I know there some out there.TomCloyd (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Would recommend that you first attempt to obtain GA status than FA status.
Yup. A rational approach, I'd say.TomCloyd (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
LP and I have created about 150 of these maps now. We have just gone with what the WHO says on faith and have not really looked into their methods. Let us know what you find.Doc James (talkcontribs · email) 19:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Will dig in and report back. Can't believe they don't make it clear somewhere.TomCloyd (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tamiflu and drug resistance.

Hi Doc James,

Okay, the reference our article has been using and carrying a while. While it does say Britain has been handing out Tamiflu willy nilly, it doesn't specifically say people are not completing a full course (although that stands to figure).

“In addition, a British report found that people often failed to complete a full course of the drug or took the medication when not needed.[136]”

WHO: Healthy people who get swine flu don't need Tamiflu; drug for young, old, pregnant, Associated Press (reprinted by Washington Examiner), Maria Cheng, Aug. 21, 2009. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/ap/53932902.html

And we probably need a newer reference anyway.

Cool Nerd (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree, the moralistic view that the virus somehow knows whether the person is taking it in the "right" way, yeah, on reflection, that doesn't hold any water at all. It can't!
We still might need an updated reference. We're both busy, but if either one of us get a chance, that would be a good addition. Cool Nerd (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to try to talk it up a little on the discussion page. Probably won't get much action. People seem to have the most energy for grammar and the formality of the writing itself! And much less energy for everything else. Maybe if we called ourselves wikipedia researchers, rather than wikipedia editors. Cool Nerd (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation

Hi Doc. I noticed your deletion and the edit summary here. While not all PTs perform SM, many do and it's part of standard PT education and practice in many countries. That fact also explains the actions of some chiropractic groups who have sued PTs who have performed SM (not the same as chiropractic spinal adjustment). I learned lots of manual therapy, including SM, in my basic PT training in the 80s and since then have probably used around $100,000 on extensive post graduate training in manual therapy, including SM. If you have some other objection to that wording, then it needs fixing, but your edit summary isn't accurate. Lots of the research on SM uses SM performed by PTs, and some of the best research being done is being done by PTs. Chiropractic really has no serious motivation to do truly scientific research on SM because the majority of DCs still wish to perform "adjustments" as a cure all for general health on every single patient, while MDs, DOs, and PTs are all interested in understanding which particular subgroups of patients will benefit from it, and which ones won't. For them it is just one tool in their armamentarium of treatment options, while for most DCs it is the one tool they use on every single patient, regardless of their "need". -- Brangifer (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not see a ref for this. Are you able to provide one? Thanks for the clarification was unaware that PT do SM. Will add it back in if the ref states the above line.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to restore the statement, primarily because it seems misplaced. The refs used include cites to studies using SM performed by PTs, studies about SM performed by PTs, and guidelines made for and used by MDs and PTs. The statement really isn't necessary, since it is generally known that PTs do perform SM, which obviously irritates DCs. The article on spinal manipulation is clear about that. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Yes I notice that it does state this in the SM article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic, writing for parents and interested persons

Doc James,

I'm hoping this is something you might be able to help me with. Okay, today WHO held a press conference to reassure people that the vaccine is safe, don't listen to conspiracy theories, with WHO's Dr. Kieny, not emphasizing the conspiracy side, but emphasizing the positive that so far, conservatively 65 million doses of vaccine administered, probably more, and only a few cases of Gullain-Barre linked (presumably because the time sequence makes sense). http://www.who.int/mediacentre/vpc_transcript_19_november_09_kieny.pdf

And our article is not helping at all, because it's as dead and as flat as a pancake. Between us and the conspiracy theorists, we lose. The conspiracy theorists win, and win lose---Because they are actually writing for readers, and we write . . . I guess for artificial standards of formality because we sure aren't writing for readers.

I have put forward the idea of an imaginary parent who has been informed that there have been cases of swine flu at their child's school, but that so far their child is still healthy. So, the parent isn't panicking, but this Mom or Dad sure wants to get accurate and timely information. They want to know what's going on right now. And can you blame them? I don't. Well, to the best of our abilities, let's give it to them!

I was blocked from wikipedia back in May (24 hours) for insisting that we put in a section entitled "Current Situation" where we had excerpts of news clippings, which could then be integrated in the article time permitting, and I probably did push it one time too much. Well, if not "Current Situation," something similar, for our topic cries out for some kind of straightforward chronological treatment. And although I didn't like it too much at the time, now I kind of look at it as a badge of honor.

Okay, the pandemic years of '57 and '68, about a million deaths, compared to a baseline of 500,000. So, each of these years, 500,000 additional people died who would not have died other years. Well, a lot of these people aren't going to read wikipedia anyway, a lot of times it doesn't matter getting to the emergency room a little bit earlier, or not going to the emergency room and clogging it up, you analyze it all the way down, we might be able to save several dozen lives. But still, several dozen lives. That's significant. Not often do you get a chance to do that. And that trumps formality. Let's write a genuinely helpful and a genuinely informative article. Please help me. Cool Nerd (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at Wiki News, not quite what I'm looking for. What I have in mind is the following:

Recent WHO press conferences

Transcript of virtual press conference with Dr Marie-Paule Kieny, Director, Initiative for Vaccine Research World Health Organization, WHO, 19 November 2009. An audio transcript is also available at WHO’s Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 press briefings.

" . . . As my colleague Dr Nikki Shindo discussed last week, WHO advises health providers to focus on early treatment for at-risk people with flu or anyone showing signs of serious illness. . . . "

" . . . To date, less than a dozen suspected cases of Guillain-Barre have been reported following vaccination. Only a few of these Guillain-Barre cases may be linked to the pandemic vaccine. . . . "

. . . Dr Nikki Shindo, Medical Officer, Global Influenza Programme, World Health Organization, 12 November 2009. (NB: there are some passages in this transcript which have not been transcribed because of poor audio quality.) There is also a direct audio recording available at Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 press briefings.
.
.

and why I like this

We are letting the parents see the information directly. We are not standing between the parent and the information.

And why would I attempt to rewrite what Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny has said into more formal, stilted language?? I'm not a doctor, and even if I were, I don't see the advantage.

So, we have the same old wikipedia, business as usual, and we integrate new information time permitting, and at the same time we have this new section. We have the neat section, and the messy section (the messy section is likely to be more interesting!).

Admittedly, with news items it gets dicey. I remember a previous discussion/debate on whether the HuffingtonPost whatever constituted a good news source. And I really don't know. I did not get into that debate at all. But we're not going to go too far afield using CNN, Reuters, BCC. I just don't want to limit it to only the most establishment sources. So, we use our best judgment, we learn as we go along. And we let our readers just see for themselves exactly what news source we are using.Cool Nerd (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic, trying an experiment

Hi Doc James

Okay, I'm trying something. I've included the following right after the lead. If we're in general agreement, I could sure use some backup! And if we're on opposite sides, I guess that's okay, too! Cool Nerd (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent News Articles

When to take a sick child to the ER, Los Angeles Times, Rong-Gong Lin II, Nov. 21, 2009:

‘ . . . "Is there something really different about your child that's different from the seven or eight viral infections your kid gets every year? Those are the changes to look out for," said Dr. Mark Morocco, associate residency director for emergency medicine at UCLA. . . . ’

‘ . . . Lung inflammation is particularly dangerous to infants and young children because their airways are smaller. . . .
.
.
.

This is Los Angeles Times, a name newspaper. What more do you want? Cool Nerd (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't really have a ready email source and don't want to make it public. Sorry. Cool Nerd (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, will try and include it. Currently adding excepts WHO press conferences. You know my additions will likely only be measured in hours, unless I can get some back-up? Cool Nerd (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Doc James, don't do that, how we parents ever find it, in the mass of our own carefully compiled information (we have duplicated CDC or WHO in a sense) Copyright. Fair Use? not for profit, and it's an excerpt, it's not the whole thing, just a fraction. Think about starting (yet another!) page on swine flu tomorrow Cool Nerd (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
What if, at top, just current WHO rec'd and current CDC rec'd? Cool Nerd (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC) And you really are a doctor, tell me the truth!
And I'm getting ready to run the "Three's Company argument" on 2009 flu .. discussin page. Going to reprint episode synopses, which we have on wiki and ask, if we have room for this---as fun as it is!---currently we have room for a good meaty discussion of viral vs. bacterial pneumonia, and I think we can quote straight from the horse's mouth, at least to the best of our ability, a t least CDC and WHO. And isn't ? Switzerland doing great things, or why not Jordan, why not leading infectious disease docs from Jordan? Cool Nerd (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Not familiar with the "Three's Company argument" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Just if we have space for this, certainly we have space for a good substantial argument on pneumonia. Tried to pick one of the more outlandish. (and yeah, I like the show or I never would have had patience for it) Cool Nerd (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) still not sure what you are getting at? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

James! Wow. Okay, a parent reads our site and says "Wow, this is really good."

That we endeavor to have THE best swine flu site on the entire web. We may never do it, but if we don't have the goal of doing it, we don't have a chance.

Yes we hope to have a good site for everyone. Let me the discussion back to the influenza page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
James, my university library is closing in literally 5 minutes (now 3 and half!) It's been real good talking with you. I'm going to try the site tomorrom time permitting. Just like the Three Company episode site is a differnt site, basically just a list. I got to think we can find a way to include current WHO etc recd Cool Nerd (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu, Current Situation

Doc James, please check it out. Swine Flu, Current Situation And oh yeah, I'm getting some opposition. Apparently, anyone doing something differently . . . please help if you reasonably can. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Had to start new page Swine Flu H1N1, WHO Recommendations. That's the strongest case for Fair Use, but I think news items actually have a pretty strong case themselves. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, the 'rules' poorly serve us, I guess, maybe people are just misapplying the rules. But I can't believe the 'rules' stand in the way of us doing a good job. Our real audience is like the guy or gal worried about infant mortality in Portugal (who recently wrote on our discussion page, and I'm the only one who responded). I mean, she could care less about the formal writing, and the buffered down approach. And I know you've heard that the passive style is a bad way to go. So then, the obvious question. . .
Okay, I've been deleted twice. I'm not going to press it too much more. But, I am going to try and make a case on fair use, I guess on the Fair Use discussion page and my own discussion page. And I ask that you look at it with an open mind, and if we can establish that excerpting WHO updates is allowable with a reasonable degree of probability and perhaps excerpting news items as well (shorter excerpts), then I ask that you welcome the experiment. We'll have my page (largely my page, you're certainly welcome to participate!) and the standard page, and we'll see which one the person from Portugal and my mythical parent prefers, how about that!
And if Wiki is going to be a collaborative intellectual project (and so far I don't see much of that!), we've got to try experiments. I don't see that there's any other way. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

template:flu

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Template_talk:Flu#Width.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pandemic Flu, Placement of Table

Hi Doc James, please go the usual way and obtain a real consensus of at least a few editors before making such an important change as you did.
We have experienced in the past, that a lot of users are coming just for the actual numbers. To provide an actual picture seems to be even more important now, that the numbers are growing faster than ever, while media attention is ceasing.
I will accept a move of the table, when a true majority is supporting it, but a 'majority' consisting of you and a not really decided Cybercobra does not deserve that name.
When asking for a consensus, please think of including the editors of Template:2009_flu_pandemic_table. This is the table, which was originally in place there, being replaced by the smaller-in-size overview with the direct link now.
FHessel (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have started many threads of discussion. People have commented. Most of us now seem in favor of having it in the epidemiology section.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)