Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Pneumothorax

Hey James, I have done most of what I can on pneumothorax. I suspect this is something you manage more frequently than me, so would you mind having a quick look? JFW | T@lk 23:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly will take a look tonight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've listed it formally for GA. Looking forward to your acceptance for RFA. JFW | T@lk 07:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The nomination still needs a formal acceptance. Will transclude the request anyway because you have indicated acceptance. JFW | T@lk 07:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Decompression sickness

Many thanks, James, for your sterling work in keeping me on the right track. I've made a list of ideas for further development of the article at Talk:Decompression sickness#"To Do" list. If you get the chance, I'd appreciate any other suggestions that may have crossed your mind while reviewing. Keep up the good work! --RexxS (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pmid --> Full reference

Hi James. I vaguely remember reading about a tool that would create a Wikipedia citation if one just added the PubMed identification number, or other such similar number. Would you happen to know what I am talking about, and could you point me towards it if possible? Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You probably want User:Diberri's tool, which is at http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi? Or consider the template {{cite pmid}}, which I have not tried myself. I hope it works. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic: Can you check the updated safety section?

Hey Doc,

Thanks for the update offer. I have been busy incorporating sources to which I already had access, but I'd be interested in looking at your article. I'd rather not post my email here, since it's basically my full name, but I'll take you up on it a little later when I have a different account I can use.

I was hoping you'd take a look at the 'safety' section. I updated the resources "disputing Ernst", which really were just the last 5 years of research trying to quantify the frequency/cause of vertebrobasilar artery injury and stroke following manipulations. I think it tells a more complete story now, but it'd be good to have you look it over to see that I characterized things fairly, and in a medically accurate fashion. Here's the new diff on the Talk:Chiropractic page. Ocaasi (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks will do when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Article linked in your RFA

Regarding the article you linked to in Q6 in your RfA, I greatly appreciate your openness with the matter. Out of curiosity, what was the outcome of the complaints mentioned in the article? I'm not likely to oppose based on your answer, and if you feel my question is intrusive, feel free not to answer. As an aside, I'm an engineering student, and have very strong opinions about professional ethics, which is why I'm curious about this matter. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 18:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

See my question and James' response in the Discussion section. NW (Talk) 18:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Image galleries

I know you've been busy with your RfA and may not have noticed my reply at my talk page. I've gone ahead and changed the gallery at Streptococcal pharyngitis to use a templated version with title and alt text for you. Please change it to suit what you wanted. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Pneumothorax

I think I have addressed your concerns. RexxS and GeneHobbs may still add something about diving and risk of pneumothorax, but I have left this with them as they seem to be in posession of the sources. JFW | T@lk 19:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hello early congratulations on your RfA! Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

dispute

Hi, what was the situation regarding your legal dispute? or disputes? Could you link to the wiki discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, user WhatamIdoing has given me enough details for me to understand how that could easily happen to me or anyone, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Have sent you a note outlining my position. Not to radical I hope :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic mediation

It looks like this is quite a problem, I have created a mediation cabal request to help us move on with the issue on the article: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-23/Chiropractic. Please consider participating once the case has been accepted by a mediator. --Anon 08:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned your name on ANI

I have mentioned your name on the admin noticeboard with regard to reports of disruption caused by 7Mike5000.Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_.2F_harassment_by_User:7mike5000--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts?

As your User:Jmh649/Suppression of content essay is similar, I would appreciate hearing any thoughts you have on WP:AMORAL. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010


Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Lead: Transcendental Meditation, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

AN/I notice.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which your name was discussed. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility / harassment by User:7mike50007mike5000 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! --WS (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the janitorial corps. Happy mopping!   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Well done and Congratulations Calmer Waters 09:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Well done, you ran the gauntlet and made it out the other side. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, James! Now, about those pages that need moving ... --RexxS (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations-- you did well, through a tough one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you can make it. And good job for reaching WP:100! OhanaUnitedTalk page 11:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good job, congratulations.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Ditto!! Hordaland (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's your free T-shirt!
Congratulations.(olive (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC))
Congratulations from me as well. You'll do great! Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me also extend my. Enjoy the mop, endure the responsibility WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nominator congratulations! Well done and good luck with the tools! JFW | T@lk 15:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! (Keep editing.) Anthony (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Many thanks to all those who commented. I will take all advice into consideration in my attempts to improve Wikipedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Late conga rats. My talkpage is always open if you would like to punish me for missing your RfA advice or commiserations. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, James! [Sorry I missed the voting period myself.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If there is a record for time elapsed from promotion to first use of tools, you are probably close to setting it. Do something already! [lol-jk of course] –xenotalk 17:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Xeno. I am about to move a page to its ICD 10 classification. Was just waiting to get consensus... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I kid, of course. No need to rush in. =) –xenotalk 17:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Ya I know :-) This admin stuff is serious business. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I almost moved it, but I guess I will leave it up to you then ;-) --WS (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The internet is srs bizness. NW (Talk) 18:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking note of opposition

As you know, some of the opinions expressed in the RfA were not supportive. Perhaps it will be seen as constructive for me to summarize the comments in opposition: It appears that some were inclined to characterize a few of your edits in the past as "inartful."

With this in mind, I decided to commemorate the outcome by tweaking Canadian official war artists and War Artist#Canadian. In some cases, I suppose that a Wikipedia administrator is required to become something of a "war artist"? The research which informed my modest edits suggest that there is a wide range of ways in which to achieve "artful."

I feel confident that your recent detractors will be won over as they follow your future contributions to Wikipedia. --Tenmei (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the vote of confidence. There appears to be a fine line between not getting ones point across and being to forceful. Often no matter what one does when they deal with controversial topics someone will complain.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Jmh649 has been made a member of the Order of the Mop,
for their work as an admin and is entitled to display
this award for being such a great admin,

Kind regards and happy editing,
MessageDeliveryBot (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For a userbox version go here.

Fridae'sDoom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for all your hard work and enjoy the cookies! To our newest admins, good luck with all the requests enjoy your shiny buttons and do us proud!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom at 11:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

Watchlist

Please take note of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Requested move discussion at Talk:Eulsa Treaty and watchlist Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Requested Move, especially in the context established here.

I endorse Nihonjoe's summary of the substance of my scrupulously mild comments.

I am especially eager for your close scrutiny of any further comments about the role of mentors, if it develops an issue. --Tenmei (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I didn't consider any of there "reversions" so I am asking for input on the last two at least. [1]Thanks for your note.(olive (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Email

If you haven't, check it. ;) Sincerely, Blurpeace 02:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Have replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 Thank you for your support of the Medical Collaboration of the Month.
The April 2018 collaboration is Transverse myelitis.
We welcome your help!

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

I do sincerely apologize

I, again, want to apologize for the personal attack on you, rather than your edits/messages. I doesn't matter if you are an MD or not - It was very hot-headed, negative, and extremely unprofessional of me. My impatience and anger at having wasted my valuable free time on this is no excuse for my juvenile reaction. I hope you accept my apology.Whitebear2 (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes no worries. Internet communication can be difficult. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation filed on opening paragraph of lead

Per your agreement, I have added your name to a mediation on the opening paragraph of the lead to the TM article. [2](olive (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Sure thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes

You might not want to "put words in" Jeske's mouth, as your previous comment seems to do. Some of his earlier comments indicate that he is very disturbed by the prospect of Pending Changes, and he also does not seem to like people presuming too much from his comments. Just a few observations ....

Thanks for your comments in there, by the way. Perhaps I can get you to comment on the discussion I've suggested for later: Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#Finding_the_community.27s_comfort_level BigK HeX (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I intended it to be a question rather than a statement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Heartosaurus.com

Hi there Doc, I notice that you removed my "external link" from "Aortic Aneurysm" in the wikipedia. I believe Heartosaurus provides information crucial to potential patients, people diagnosed, and perhaps caregivers. There is not a wealth of information on the site, however the site provides an element that NONE of the medical links, doctors, or other references do. It provides people with a human view and surrounding issues of "Aortic Aneurysm" the site contains information that is not obtained from doctors, medical manuals, or in a book. I think the external link to heartosaurus.com is not self serving, and furthermore provides diversity to the wikipedia page by presenting an angle and window to information not obtained on the more popular medical websites. Would you find it in your graces to allow me to reinsert the link to heartosaurus.com in the external links on the Aortic Aneurysm page? Please? The site is not for profit and offers very valuable, and unique information regarding Aortic Aneurysm. Futhermore it is in need of growth and an external link would serve the people and the cause tremendously. Please write back. Respectfully, Benjamin J. Carey —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminJC (talk • contribs) 05:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply re. See also sections

Hi, to respond to your post on my talk page ("See also section are not recommended per WP:MEDMOS Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)"), many of the medical articles I've worked on recently (e.g. Pulmonary hypertension, Systemic lupus erythematosus, Viral hepatitis, Hyperthyroidism) already have 'See also' sections. I guess if you think one (or more) of the See also sections I've added is unnecessary or wrong, the way to go would be to raise your specific concerns on that particular article. Thanks.--TyrS (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hemorrhoids

Hello, nice to have an actual doc editing an article! I see you have done a lot of work on this one. This particular article needs some work in the intro so that people (or kids) who have no idea what hemorrhoids are can learn the basics. Specifically, its first sentence did not even say what hemorrhoids are. I believe (based on some google searches) that the answer to that is that they are "veins in the anal canal" and made this change. Maybe it is obvious to most that they are veins, but not to all, so I do not believe we should omit this. In any case, let's try to make the first few sentences as clear and easy to understand as possible keeping in mind that not all wikipedia readers are medical students :) Cshay (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think...

About splitting up the article as per Talk:Crab_louse#Order? ---kilbad (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Wikibreak

Hi James. I've had a death in the family and am temporarily relocated. I'll get back to the Wikipedia:Invitation to edit trial candidates list in a day or two. Anthony (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

the template and the bar

I apologise, sir, that I had forgotten and had re-added the Template. I did it again without thinking. As per the consensus you mention, I would really rather not do that work myself; surely someone in WP:MED would be able to do it. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I am away the next few days. Will give you a hand next week.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your help please, regarding disruptive sockpuppeteer

Hi James,

I dunno if you remember reverting a spam link recently on urinary tract infection or not. Anyway I was going through the recent edits to that page and saw another two accounts who had tried to add in the same spam link. Naturally I requested a sock investigation and it turned up a large campaign to try and get some guys casual sexual exploits web site into wikipedia articles. The check user found 20 accounts created over the past 3 weeks, to me that appears rather obsessive and determined. See investigation for more information. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Junepar65/Archive The subject type of articles that the guy covered varied meaning other editors will probably not connect the disruptive behaviour to a previous sock investigation and he may learn to hide his tracks better. Anyway, I think the solution is to get his web site added to the spam black list. Can you do this or do you know how to do this? Thanks! :_)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Will look into it. The place to post is the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok thank you. I don't know REGEX, so I am not confident editing that list.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Have posted here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes data

I think the trial is approaching a soft death. Do you think there is a major loss from not having continuity of data for a small sample of articles (100-700)? It might be academic at this point, but I'm curious if there's a practical case to be made for having certain articles under the feature for an extended period of time, regardless of the ups and downs of the feature. Ocaasi 03:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes those who oppose the feature are doing so more strongly than those who support it ( even though the supporters have greater numbers ). Having this feature being used continuously will help us provide feedback to the developers about ongoing changes they should make. As I wish to analyze its effectiveness further having flexibility for small more structured trials would be nice. It will be interesting to look at the rates of vandalism on those pages over the months after the trial is turned off. As only a couple medical pages were under pending changes I do not really have the desire to do a trial of other areas. When it comes to pop culture I am unable to determine if the change was vandalism or not ( it is all trivia IMO ).
Not addressing vandalism, which I think PCs did well, will set Wikipedia back a lot. Yes Wikipedia has other problems but the main reason I hear from my colleagues as to why they do not contribute is the fact that everything they write could be easily vandalized. They are just not interested in putting in the work in this sort of environment. Thus we have competition such as Medpedia and Wikidoc.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how aware you are of the automated or semi-automated vandal-fighting tools, the edit-filter, Huggle, Igloo, and Lupin's RCP, among others. Recent changes patrol, at least for i.p. edits and blatant vandalism, does review basically every anonymous edit on the whole project. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty good sieve.
The problem you're describing is 'subtle vandalism', the edits that intentionally or otherwise introduce dangerous falsehoods under the guise of a normal edit. That problem is a stubborn one. But even for medical articles and BLPs, what I consider "high sensitivity" articles, I wonder if pending changes is sufficient to stop the problem. I'm not yet sold that pending changes can prevent vandalism, at least the worst kinds, partly because editors aren't medical experts who could necessarily spot a subtle act act of vandalism.
I think there are numerous options in addition to pending changes, possibly systematizing watchlists (e.g. posting the number of page-watchers on each page as one indication of its reliability), or having users rate the reliability of pages (possibly with some of them appointed/identified as experts/trusted users), or having a medical institution "adopt" a page.
Overall, pending changes is a very neat functionality that should almost definitely be used for something, even if it's not a panacea; I fully support the trial and the development of the feature regardless of these big issues. Ocaasi 07:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I still see a lot of IP vandalism. It will be interesting to look at how much remains when I come home.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Jmh649, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

the cerebral palsy article

It does seem, sir, that your reverts excising the cerebral palsy box are done without discussion and with an eye to the WP:MED discussion but without similar input over at WikiProject:Disability. Considering that Cerebral Palsy in particular is a lifelong condition that gives way to certain ways of living and being that could be argued to in many ways make it more than a straight-ahead medical condition, why not allow the Disability Template to remain on there in good faith, or at least to discuss it on the CP talk page, the WikiProject:Disability talk page, and similar venues? Thanks for your time. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes surprise

Well, we won... kinda, by fiat, by emperor decree. The seemingly obvious support to keep the feature going was apparently noted by Jimbo Wales and he asserted that consensus was not concerned with defaulting to close or trial dates or poll structure, but about the feature itself and making it better over time on articles where it is helpful. It certainly seems reasonable to me, but I spent so much time trying to make the talk page point in a coherent direction, that I have mixed feelings about it being basically imposed by afar. I wonder if the discussion we were having was unduly biased by extreme opposition, or bridled with procedural technicalities. I'm not exactly sure if this was a victory for common sense and reasonability, or a violation of community process. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Trauma Colab

Hello there. I was wondering if you would like to help out spotlight work on Trauma (medicine). Also what is your opinion on renaming the article to "Physcial trauma"? Thanks! Peter.C • talk 14:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee

[4] Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification

A request for clarification [5] has been filed per [6] Although it may not affect you directly, your name has been mentioned or referenced.(olive (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC))

Question

I know this is completely unrelated to Wikipedia, but I noticed that in your picture you were wearing the Littman Master Cardiology. I have a Cards III and I've been thinking about getting a Master Cardiology or an electronic. So my question is, how do you like the Master cardiology, and if you've used an electronic, how do they compare. Thanks! Ronk01 talk 01:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Ronk01's talk page.
Message added 15:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Threaded discussion on Arbitration pages

Hi James. Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement are generally structured very differently from other pages on the encyclopedia. While it may be common to partake in threaded discussion at these pages, such a thing is generally frowned upon on pages like WP:AE or WP:A/R/A. Could I ask that you please refrain from doing so in the future? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of this and as far as I know have not commented in anyone elses sections. If I have please provide a dif and I will move my comments. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Edith Sirius Lee pointed out these two diffs: [7], [8]. I am not sure if it is still an issue, but I just wanted to give you a heads up. NW (Talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and I removed the comment on Aug 9th here [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This particular statement was seen as inappropriate because the AE was closed and it was requested that we make no further comment. In fact, your explanation for this removal [10] was "missed the bit about no further comment thus removed my comment". It had nothing to do with the fact that the comment was made in my section. In fact, you wrote a much longer and disruptive comment in TimidGuy section [11] and did not remove it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
No one commented on this point at that time.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I requested that you remove your comment, pointing out the request that we do not modify this closed AE, and after a while you removed it. However, this is beside the point here. The point is that, in a very disruptive manner, you broke the rule about threaded comments in this AE. Indeed, no one commented on this point at the time, not even Cirt who applied the rule even for a small threaded comment in my appeal of this AE. This is why I say there is a double standard here. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It is a minor procedural issue. It will not really affect your appeal. Yes in the previous AE case I misplaced text. All the best.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The rule itself might not have a big effect on the appeal, but the existence of a double standard at the time of the AE is a serious concern that should be considered in this appeal. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Short Course Immune Induction Therapy

This is an odd article. I started cleanup of refs today, but I'm concerned by the coincidental appearance of TOL101. Both seem to be created by SPAs, and there is a certain sense that they may be acting for Tolera Theraputics. This ClinicalTrials entry pertains to both. The term "Short Course Immune Induction Therapy" (SCIIT) appears here on their corporate site. It may all be above board, but I think I smell something vaguely murine. Still, the subject matter does appear to be well documented, if not by exactly that name. Try scholar on "Short Course" "Immune Induction" for a few examples. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely does not seem above board. Appears to be someone attempting to us Wikipedia to advertise their product. All I require is one review article that covers the topic at hand.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't have access to it, but the abstract at doi:10.1016/j.trre.2010.04.002 looks promising. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not see this term mentioned in the text of the article you link above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I expect the term in the article should be moved or merged to something more like Acute graft-versus-host disease, with a significant change of focus. The keyword I spotted in that doi linked review abstract is "tolerance induction", but I wouldn't think that's a very useful WP article title. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. It'll take me some study. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I've stepped OUT of the box at user talk:Dgetts. If I have, please revert me.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

As I wrote on Jimbo's talk page, the condition of pending changes trial was straightforward and unambiguous. Try for 2 months, default to stop unless consensus says otherwise. Now Jimbo's trying to change the rules of the game by putting everything on hold while he comes up with some plan, which draws a lot of criticism. A much bigger crowd showed support and consensus for the Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Straw poll#Alternative phrasing, which says "Remove PC from any article (except for articles specific to the purpose of testing and demonstration outside the mainspace)" OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Was away a few days and missed that.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to bedbug

I can say only three things. (1) Wow. (2) Thank you. (3) Again, thank you.

Yes, you might have left some spelling and grammar errors, but fixing those can be left to mere mortals. Like me. Yakushima (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Still have a few more things to add yet.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bedbug bite

Hello! Your submission of Bedbug bite at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smartse (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Herpetic whitlow - email

Hi Just sent an e-mail via Wikipedia re use of your herpetic whitlow image. RuralVirologist (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Red bull#Health effects

The quote there at the end of the first sentence seems off (grammatically unsound) but I can't get through to the source. Can you take a look? –xenotalk 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sent to you.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As I suspected, it must've been vandalized or something: [12]. –xenotalk 18:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_11&oldid=1090504101"