Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Neuroblastoma

Hi Doc James, a year ago you initiated a GA review for neuroblastoma. Wondered if you want to finish your assessment? I made the changes you recommended last summer. Note, it was recently "bannered" as a stub/dermatology task force. Not sure neuroblastoma is appropriate for dermatology (nor is the article a stub). It is a sympathetic nervous system cancer and very rarely presents as subcutaneous nodules on infants (blueberry syndrome). Thanks for your help! DMLud (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and will take another look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice work! Thanks so much. Better!!!DMLud (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Important Safety Information for Cervarix

Hi Doc James,

Thanks again for your comment regarding the GSK copyright for the Cervarix Important Safety Information that I proposed in my request on the Cervarix article discussion forum. In response, we at GSK understand that the content provided will be used to update the Cervarix article on Wikipedia, and that the intended target audience will be the users of the Wikipedia community.

GlaxoSmithKline is pleased to grant such permission to reproduce the material solely for the specific use as described above, and this permission can be revoked at any time. GlaxoSmithKline strictly prohibits future reproduction of this content in any other matter.

Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me through my talk page at your convenience.

Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doc James, this is new for us, so we will research Creative Commons and our options. Thanks for your help! Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbaric medicine

Hi James, many thanks for your cleanup at Hyperbaric medicine. There's been several long-term problems with the article: advertising, too much weight on personal chambers (especially for a US audience), and claims that HBOT can cure various ailments. There may, or may not, be any substance in a what's written, but what is certain is that it desperately needs sources, so thanks for your contributions. It gets a bit lonely in scuba-related articles at times :) --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes much of Wikipedia in lonely. I will look more at the hyperbaric stuff when I have time. It is often fun having someone to edit with.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Albinism

Thank you for bringing the mis-citation to my attention. I believe I have fixed it. Alisfos (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

You input, assistance are appreciated. 98.148.124.242 (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doc James,

Sorry for that inappropriate external link. I wasn't fully aware of the guidelines. Thanks for the reference. I'll be more careful next time.

Jrennie (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Likely WP:MED articles on pending changes already

Hi there -

A quick look at the list of articles already covered under pending changes reveals the following that are (probably) covered under WP:MED:

That's not quite 3% of all the articles currently in the trial, and is a non-negigible segment given how disproportionately politicians, athletes and entertainers are represented. You might want to add them to your watchlist if you use one; a "pending changes" flag will show up if you happen to be looking at the right split second. Risker (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Risker will do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Good news

A couple of good things happened today: A minor edit here reminded me of an article I created in 2008.

Елисеева is Russian for Elisséeff; and it caused me to remember writing about Serge Elisséeff at Harvard. It will take time for me to figure out how to explain why this seemed helpful.

A more immediate consequence was the opportunity to enjoy effective collaboration. I worked with In ictu oculi in improving the text of William George Aston and Kim Chae-guk. This was a very small illustration of what I hope to encounter whenever I log on to Wikipedia. Good news is good to share.

FYI: you may be interested in a stub article I created about John P. Merrill, the "father of nephrology" --Tenmei (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sepsis

As an aside, I nearly died because my treating physician insisted that I be treated for a different category of shock. On the topic of MODS, 1992 is an utterly reptilian date. But the citiation was not removed because it was from 1992. It was removed because the statement for which it was cited no longer exists as recognized fact. When a statement is categorically incorrect, as you surely know that it is, it cannot be added to. Because it constitutes a form of vandalism It must be wholely expunged. Consequently there is nowhere left for a new citation to be placed. QuintBy : Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintby (talk • contribs) 08:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You need a ref saying that this is no longer the case. Uptodate still uses the 1992 definition. I have not seen a newer one. I am not sure were the questions regarding vandalism comes from. I do not think it applies in this case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Important Safety Information for Cervarix released under Creative Commons and GNU Free Documentation License

Hello DocJames. Following up on our last discussion, I wanted to let you know that the Important Safety Information for Cervarix that I posted to the Cervarix Talk page has been released "under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)". This is documented on the Cervarix Talk page. Thank you for your input on this! Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Reversion of "vandalism"

That was not vandalism. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome can cause pharyngitis, in fact it even says that on the NMS page. Please read a textbook before you revert my edits in the future, and don't patronise me again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.106.16 (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I actually have consulted a few textbooks. It is not mentioned in the three references that were supporting that line of text. Therefore I have removed it again. Please provide a reliable source per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You have no right to remove it, you are allowed to add "citation needed", for which I am about to provide one. This is going against policy, you can't just remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.106.16 (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And seriously, don't you have better things to do on your 'holiday'. Lets go on holiday and edit wikipedia! For that matter, do you bring your "textbooks" on holiday with you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.106.16 (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Verifiability if says "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". I enjoy editing Wikipedia and have electronic access to my Universities entire collection. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it can be a good indicator of NMS, because pharyngitis is caused by many antipsychotics. As such, the presence of pharyngitis is a good indicator that the problem may actually be NMS, which is often misdiagnosed. I'm reading this out of my Australian Doctor "How to Treat Yearbook 2005"58.96.106.16 (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't be bothered going to the effort of citing this because I have better things to do, so I hope that you feel happy that you have deprived wikipedia readers of useful knowledge. Read the second case report on this link http://www.druglib.com/adverse-reactions_side-effects/abilify/seriousness_hospitalization/reaction_neuroleptic_malignant_syndrome/. Enjoy your holiday. 58.96.106.16 (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And to remain 'consistent' you should really remove it from the neuroleptic malignant syndrome page as well. 58.96.106.16 (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes we do not use case reports. Review articles are preferred. All the best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Statins

Hola,

Regards your Arch Int Med addition to statins, I formatted it using the awesome {{cite pmid}} but the greater issue is that it now appears twice, once in the section you added it to, and once in controversy (since rewritten and reformatted). Not being an expert, I don't know how it all fits together though I do think my edits were an improvement in context if nothing else.

Note, however, that the account that added it Thx1138robot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (possibly soon to be Thx1138robert (talk · contribs) due to a name change request) is overly enthusiastic about bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, the conflicts of interest that apparently drive this miracle from being accepted as a risk-free wonderdrug, and is adding a bunch of undue weight to that, and related articles. I've since reverted, but I expect that's not the end. Just an FYI. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Syncope (medicine)

Your comments at Talk:Syncope (medicine)#Awkward disambiguator would be appreciated. –xenotalk 17:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Gastroenteritis

Hi Jmh649,

Thanks for recognizing that my edit was in good faith, as I'm certain was yours. I had checked the ref before altering the Gastroenteritis article. In the section "Dietary Therapy", 3rd paragraph down it reads:

"Foods high in simple sugars should be avoided because the osmotic load might worsen diarrhea; therefore, substantial amounts of carbonated soft drinks, juice, gelatin desserts, and other highly sugared liquids should be avoided." (my emphasis), OK I changed substantial amounts to large quantities but my edit did reflect more accurately what was written in the source than what was previously there. As it's almost a direct quote from the source I'm going to change it back, but thought I'd let you know as I don't want to start an edit w*r.

IanOfNorwich (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

a recent message

Hi there, I am afraid I am not the one who made that edit, and no one else uses this computer. But no worries, I will sign into my old account and see if that stops. 69.171.173.207 (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cervarix Safety Information content released under Creative Commons license

Hi DocJames, I noticed my update to you regarding the Cervarix Safety Information was autoarchived from your talk page. I wanted to let you know that I have I have released the content under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License. This is documented on the Cervarix Talk Page. Thank you for your guidance on this. Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Am busy currently and will be unable to look into things for a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hemorrhoids!!

Not a pleasant topic, but I can assure you that far more than 5% of Americans have suffered from piles at some time in the lives! By understating the issue, anyone reading the page and thinking that only one in twenty people are afflicted may considered their problem to be far more serious than it actually is. Therefore an incorrectly low figure is counter-productive. If you feel that the link I have provided is artificially inflated, then please discuss this in the relevant talk page. CrackDragon (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Cancer affects over 30% of people in the Western world. That does not make it less serious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I really think you should go and have a chat with a general medical practitioner, who'll inform you that way more than 5% of people suffer with hemorrhoids at some time in their lives. The fact that you're vastly understating the problem alludes to your nativity in this area and seriously makes me doubt your claim to be a doctor. Your link is 'better'. Define 'better'. That's one of the least convincing reasons I've ever heard to favour one reference over another. I could quote you 5000 links, many of them prestigious sites, that prove that the number of people that suffer this affliction at some time in their life is upwards of 50%. Your claim that only 1 in 20 people suffer totally distorts the incidence of this condition, and is extremely counter-productive.

CrackDragon (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It is one in 20 have the condition at any given time. Which could easily add up to 50% at some point in their life. All I ask for is a proper reference. pubmed is a great place to look for research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd also dispute that only 1/20 people have them at any given time. Many people who suffer have had them for years, and don't go for medical help due to embarrassment! And in many cases, without treatment, they get progressively worse. Sorry for coming over a little pugnacious in the last message...... CrackDragon (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Lova Falk's talk page.
Message added 12:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

RfC

I have added a Outside view by Tenmei at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. I would very much appreciate your impression, especially

(a) if you can suggest a way to improve the clarity of the writing and/or
(b) if you construe any part of the diff as insufficiently moderate and forward-looking.

As you will guess, I invested quite a bit of time in drafting this; and I want to encourage you to contact me by e-mail with any constructive comments and criticism. --Tenmei (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: natural disease

Yes. I searched online dictionaries and search engines, but could not find a definition. I attempted to determine the difference between natural disease and unnatural disease, such as those caused by man or by accident. I wanted a page on it's definition created, if possible. Perhaps it should be included in another section?

Also, do you know why isn't it a well recognized term? In online searches, I found "The history of natural disease" often, but not it's definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabixx2 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Resources

Hi Doc James. I noticed that you have commented on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Resources in the past. I was hoping that you might be able to answer my question that I placed on that page. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Award

A Barnstar!
The Star of Life
I award this Star of Life to Doc James for rolling up his wikisleeves and getting gout to Good Status. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good Reference Material

In the words of Bugs Bunny "What's up doc?". I'm a 14 year old wish the aspiration to become a EMT (or ER Doc, still haven't decided) and in order to get a better understanding of what I will be doing later on in life I decided to come back to wikipeida and edit medical articles. More on topic I would like to ask your opinion on what books could help me contribute to Wikipedia's emergency medicine articles, being a ER doc and wikipedian you seem like the perfect person to turn to. Also know any articles I could work on? I'm working on trauma and might work on asthma but if you know any other articles I can help with just say the word. Thanks! Peter.C • talk 20:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Month

Hello again - do you know when the Collaboration of the Month for the medicine wikiproject will be decided or what it will be? (This is probably a "noon" question, but I'm new to the collaboration) Thanks! Peter.C • talk 13:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

HHT

Thanks for your message. I reckon .png is the best bitmap format. JFW | T@lk 05:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Breech birth

Book is Death and the Enlightenment by John Mc Manners

ISBN-10: 0198264402 ISBN-13: 978-0198264408 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doord127 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  • McManners, John (1981). Death and the enlightenment: changing attitudes to death among Christians and unbelievers in eighteenth-century France. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-826440-2. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Sincere apologies Dr James, I'm new to wikipedia and accidentally saved some changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). I think I have undone each of these changes and the page should be back to normal. Just wanted to letsomeone know! Thankyou for taking the time to read this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig R Gill (talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Nothing around here cannot be fixed. Will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re

I replied on my talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

for the massive amount of construction you do here. You're a gem. Anthony (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope one day Wikipedia will be respected by academia... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Page views

Just a note, since you've requested this info in the past, I've added a new feature to the pageview lister to show the count for all pages in a project for the month. I've also rebuilt the October 2009 table, so it should be fairly accurate now. Mr.Z-man 21:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

I have been away for a week so I have just seen your comment on how to upload tiff images to commons... Just a comment: you can upload a high quality picture in tiff format (I am not sure of the advantages over png although I believe it may have some). However what you can not do is preview tiff images in commons but you can upload them in two versions: as jpg images (with an small amount of quality lost) and tiff images with top quality. I am also posting this comment in the med project. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think they can be used in wikipedia, only stored in commons since they are usually the highest quality files (transformation into jpg lowers quality and I think something similar occurs when you change them into png, although I am not completely sure. I do not think png is a good format for pictures). When restorations are made at old pictures at commons what people do is to upload the tiff file with no preview and a jpg conversion from it. Maybe you can ask somebody at commons more knowledgeable than me. On a side note: how big are those tiff images? are they very high quality? --Garrondo (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation: TM lead

I will ask for formal mediation for Lead (research content): Transcedental Meditation in the next few days. Would you like to be included as an involved user. I’ll check back on your user page for an answer. Thanks.(olive (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

All while you edit war and continue you acknowledge the consensus at the RfC?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Just let me know, yes or no. Thanks.(olive (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC))
We have tried everything else. I will comment during mediation.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Tenmei and Mentorship

I am not sure how the mentoring process works but links on User:Tenmei's talk page took me here. I have been making minor edits to the articles Military art, War artist, History painting trying find at least some verifiable basis for the articles. Tenmei has come along and added huge volumes of material that seem to be opinion backed up by WP:OR, namely Wikipedia:Synthesis. I have posted comments about his latest edits here Talk:Military art#Problematic edits. These need looking into. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view, this query not ripe. --Tenmei (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Asked for Difs - Reinstated[1] what seemed to be a unreferenced personal essay by User:Pharring[2], expanded it, and added a long series of references and ((fact)) tags to it, none of which support the statements made[3]. Cites examples of images and blogs with first hand commentary as a form of reference (WP:OR)[4][5][6][7]. Adds definitive statements but references used are not WP:RS/do not make the specific claim cited - or have limited scope so do not directly support the material as presented in the article[8][9]. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I will look into this. UNESCO his first reference however is not a blog? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The UNESCO reference simply goes to a photograph, so no source being quoted to support leads paragraph. Last ref in the sequence may be a repeat although it points more very un-referenced statements such as "A sub-genre of military art is "war art" which depicts some aspect of war through art; this might be a pictorial record or it might commemorate how war shapes lives" with web reference[10] to a page that does not mention "military art" or "war art" at all, let alone whether one is a sub-genre of another.Ohioartdude2 (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I see text and no photo when I look:

The Bayeux Tapestry is actually an embroidery.

This work of art is the first manuscript of the collections held at the municipal library of the city of Bayeux, located in Normandy, France.

The Tapestry is a historical account, but also an essential source of information on the way of life in the Middle Ages in general, and the 11th century in particular: it is therefore a documentary record which employs particular narrative techniques and makes use of symbolism, as do many literary and artistic works of the Romanesque period. It is a unique work: there is no other similar document to compare it with. It retains to this day an element of mystery, and several questions have not yet been fully answered.

The truly exceptional character of the Tapestry also lies in its size: it is 68.80 metres long, 50 centimetres high, and weighs close to 350 kilograms (original cloth and lining). For this reason, it needs to be exhibited in a very specific way.

I am confused to what you refer. This is neither a blog but a major international organization. When I click on the link it does not go to a photograph but text about a work of art. Am I missing something? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I was confused which ref you meant. I was referring to this edit[11] which added a statement of fact to the article intro but quoted no reliable secondary source, it simply went to a JPG image of an officer holding a Maori hand club.
The UNESCO reference would be one of a series of edits adding factual statements to an article that may not be factual/encyclopedic at all. The topic "Military art" references overwhelmingly as another name for Military science[12]. There may be no referenced art historical subject called "Military art", it may simply be War art and History painting. The problem is Tenmei seems to have created the article via synthesis and then redirected "War art" to it[13]. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry you have lost me. No subject called "Military art"? Google list lots of refs here [14] google books has 128,000 hits [15] I think you need to return to the page and discuss matters. Reverted all the changes Tenmei and User:Pharring made ( who appears to be an art curator ) seems a little heavy handed and beyond policy. Yes it was not all referenced with top quality sources but neither is a lot of the rest of Wikipedia. Some of the refs and text added to the page. Please do not throw out the baby with the bath water as the old adage goes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Further to your point why would one redirect an art form to a profession as you do here?[16] Expecially when military art / war art seem to be the same thing as per [17]. It appears that war art should redirect to military art as Tenmei has it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you have now lost me. You seem to be confusing google searching with reliable sources, and neither google searching or even checking individual reliable sources is not going fix a problem of Wikipedia:Synthesis, you may have missed the point there. If you are doing a form of "google testing" you are not doing it in the recommended way as pointed out at WP:GOOGLETEST, you need to interpret the search (or at least look at what you just googled up). So we have:
  • Your raw Google resaults/test[18] of "Military art" has hit word usage "due to marketing" (Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine tests re:Search engines cannot: ), note how many hits are galleries selling prints, and pages about "Military Science"?
  • Your google books search[19] brings up, in the first two pages, 2 book about art and 18 books about "Military Science", so yes, there is such a thing as "Military art" and its another name for "Military science".
  • "Yes it was not all referenced with top quality sources but neither is a lot of the rest of Wikipedia" ???? Sorry - thats a WP:OTHERSTUFF rational and it is no basis for keeping content or even an article.
  • "redirect an art form to a profession" that seems to be the crux of the confusion. "War art" is an art form, maybe the prime referenced topic[[20]]. Is war artist a profession or someone who creates War Art? If war artist is someone who creates War Art then "War artist" is simply a redirect to "War art" same as say Pop artist and currently the redirects are simply going the wrong way. Tenmei and others seem to be saying in talk on the related pages that "War artist" is not a profession, the profession is "Combat artist" or "Official War artist".
Ohioartdude2 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Please I think you need to return to the page and discuss matters.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bayeux tapestry

This sub-section has been moved to Talk:Military art#Bayeux tapestry. This content-related material belongs in a venue where a range of interested editors can contribute in a process of consensus-building. It is out-of-place here. --Tenmei (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The words in the sentence drafted by Pharring in January here are unchanged. This sentence was fine when it was first posted. The words were fine when the sentence was deleted without explanation by Ohioartdude2 in January. The sentence was still okay when I restored it the first time; and the words stand unedited as I restore them yet again today.

As a nod to Ohioartdude2, I added a citation to the restored Pharring sentence. Frankly, I don't understand Ohioartdude2's complaint. The UNESCO source has been expanded with more words; but this kind of extreme specificity is non-standard, e.g.,

For example, the Bayeux Tapestry is a linear panoramic narrative of the events surrounding the Norman Conquest and the Battle of Hastings in 1066.
Inline citation support>>>UNESCO, Bayeaux tapestry, Nomination Form, p. 4; excerpt,"... it is an established fact that it recounts a military triumph: the conquest of England by William the Conqueror"; Nomination Form, pp. 5-6; excerpt, "This large-scale textile work of the 11th century is, to our knowledge, the only one of its kind to have survived to the present day. The Tapestry is an almost contemporary visual record of the event it depicts, one of the most significant events of Medieval times. It tells of the beginnings of the Norman Conquest; the landing of Norman and French troops in England and the Battle of Hastings"</ref>

Why was it necessary or reasonable for me to pick out these specific sentences from the site?

This expanded explanation of a single inline citation is a gesture which may help us move towards consensus. It is also an object lesson in the value of discussion. There are 30 other inline citations and there are 38 bibliographic reference source citations; and this is only one illustrative example.

I hope this is interpreted as a demonstration of something constructive? --Tenmei (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Lieutenant-General Mateparae

This sub-section has been moved to Talk:Military art#Lieutenant-General Mataparae. This content-related material belongs in a venue where a range of interested editors can contribute in a process of consensus-building. It is out-of-place here. --Tenmei (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread mentions a perceived problem with citing the official portrait of the top military officer in New Zealand. This is the disputed sentence with its inline citation support:

"For example, the official New Zealand army artist Matthew Gauldie created an portrait of Lieutenant-General Jerry Mateparae which depicts the Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force holding a Maori hand club."
Inline citation support>>>New Zealand Army, Chief of Defence Force. OH-08-0146-31.jpg</ref>

Please note that this is a New Zealand Army official website, and the hyperlink to this portrait is posted in the official Army Artist webpage of that website. I don't understand the problem in providing a hyperlink to a painting as support for a sentence describing the painting; but setting that aside for the moment, the specific sentence above is unclear, e.g.,

"I was referring to this edit[21] which added a statement of fact to the article intro but quoted no reliable secondary source, it simply went to a JPG image of an officer holding a Maori hand club."

Ohioartdude2 sentence neglects to acknowledge that this is an official New Zealand goverment website as contrasted, for example, with a Google image search page. To me, the fact that the nature of the website was unmentioned is not a trivial oversight. If there were a legitimate question, it not been tagged ... or perhaps a note on my talk page could have been posted?

One other factor cannot be ignored. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia has an Anglo-American bias because of the demographic cohort which makes up its editors. The addition of a New Zealand illustrative example in the introduction of this article has a value which needs to be acknowledged. Also, as it happens, Lieutenant General Mateparae is the first Maori to be elevated to New Zealand's highest military office. This was a good editing decision on many levels; and it did not deserve derision or deletion.

It bears repeating that this expanded explanation of a two inline citations is a gesture which may help us move towards consensus. I hope this is interpreted as a something constructive? --Tenmei (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

I asked that we remove your comment added to my statement after the RAE was closed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Modification_of_a_closed_RAE. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I see you attempted to do this yourself. That was not appropriate. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic References

Hi Doc. I appreciated you adding supporting references to the Chiropractic talk about Ernst. I have been pushing for a more nuanced discussion of the claim, and while I think the current article is pretty fairly balanced, still resist letting Ernst's review stand by itself. As your references showed, he's not alone. I also searched around for some other points of view and found a variety of variously contrary findings in major journals which suggest Ernst's conclusions may be overstated. I posted them to the talk page, but have the full list on my userpage here User:Ocaasi/sandbox. Curious what you think. Ocaasi (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

When different reviews disagree I always go with the Cochrane conclusions in the end. I agree there are some paper that do disagree. Uptodate has a great discussion of the evidence here [22] email me your address if you do not have access. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Depression (disambiguation)

Actually, I'd thought carefully about that sequence. Having known 2 people who've lived with a diagnosis of major depression for years before being diagnosed with hypoparathyroidism, and seen the list of medical illnesses on Depression (differential diagnoses), I figured it was pretty important. Anthony (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

One must make the diagnosis before they consider the differential diagnosis. Thus the ordering.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_10&oldid=1080901998"