Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 151

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145←Archive 149Archive 150Archive 151Archive 152Archive 153→Archive 155

As an aside to Sandstein's comments above.

And taking into account Seraphimblade's comment here. I shall be looking to organise a campaign for 3 community members (I'm thinking one EN, one DE, one other) to stand for the board in the next election on an explicit and publically stated platform of curbing the WMF's interference in how the various communities self-govern. At a board level setting policy that WMF staff are not lords and masters of the various communities, and that the WMF's job is to support them in their community-driven goals. Not disappearing in the night those editors who do not fit the WMF staff's ideology. Which at this point has more in common with a military junta in the middle of a crackdown on subversives, than a modern organisation that supports the basic human rights of the individual. Its clear that at least one of your current fellow board members actively supports trials without evidence or the right of the accused to defend themselves, a position that is directly counter to the Wikipedia communities values of openness and fairness. They have to go, and its my own personal goal that if nothing else succeeds, they will not hold any further influence with the WMF. Personally I would like you to openly state you agree with me (and many others), but I understand the end game here is potentially the WMF decides to get rid of community elected board members if they become troublesome. You know this firsthand from experience, so I wouldnt fault you if you felt you couldnt support a rebuke of the WMF staff over-reach here. But hey, I would like to think your thoughts were more in tune with Seraphim's than the WMF's T&S team so who knows. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Only in death my position is that our greatest chance of success is if the WMF and communities work together as equals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
But we are not equals. At least, that is what the WMF has clearly communicated through it's T&S actions. We are lesser and subservient to their whims. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
And in addition to the above, please see this video and the related discussion at User:Iridescent's talkpage. Apparantly we are getting a code of conduct imposed on us. Working together as equals eh? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the idea of a code of conduct is a good one. But that we should be developing it ourselves (with potentially support from the WMF). It should be like any other policy on Wikipedia (ie open for editing by the community) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
That video is particularly worrying for what the T&S person is telling us will happen. wow. Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I personally think a CoC will do good but I don't remotely trust WMF T&S to write it. They are jubilant about a single metric -- quantity of articles and to them, the more editors to write more horseshit, the better it gets. Also, why do we need to go to a random Youtube video from a non-WMF linked channel, to learn of these stuff, is a bigger query. ∯WBGconverse 12:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, I will add my name to those very concerned by that video and its contents. If there really is a plan to top-down impose a "universal code of conduct" and "new user reporting system", there is no longer a question of being partners, as that would constitute a hostile takeover attempt. I hope very much that such an interpretation is not the correct one, but especially in light of recent events, we urgently need more information about that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @SPoore (WMF):, there are some comments above about the UW video published 11 June 2019. In there you very briefly commented about a "universal code of conduct". The presumption above is that this is something that might be imposed on the English Wikipedia, but I suspect that's jumping the gun as there is nothing in the video to indicate how the development and future implementation/consensus of a UCoC might happen. Is there any discussion on Meta or elsewhere that might help folks understand the intentions, or where Wikipedia long termers might chip in with suggestions of how new CoCs might or might not work with the Wikipedia community? Obviously I've seen different discussions elsewhere, but I'm not up to date on the latest strategic discussions and consultations. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Fæ agree User:SPoore (WMF) is likely the best to weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

ebola

Doc James whenever you have a minute Talk:2018–19 Kivu Ebola outbreak#Requested move 15 June 2019, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

[1] thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Follow Up Resources for Assessing Kite Pharma Wikipedia Entry

Hi Doc James,

This is a follow up from Vivian, a Public Relations professional at GCI Health regarding the Kite Pharma page. I've now included a disclosure statement within my user profile.

To ensure that suggestions for the page include the latest information, we are providing links to press releases regarding a recent manufacturing site announcement and clinical collaboration, should you identify information worthy of inclusion on Kite Pharma. You’ll see that there have also been third-party resources reporting coverage including an announcement by the Frederick County Office of Economic Development.

We also wanted to share related details about data announcements regarding Kite’s pipeline, which is outdated in the Wikipedia article with its timeline ending in 2017. Recently, Kite announced a two-year sub-population analysis of efficacy and safety for its pivotal ZUMA-1 study (post-approval) as well as Phase 1 results for its ZUMA-3 study of investigational therapy KITE-X19 for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The Kite page also mischaracterizes Axicabtagene ciloleucel (KTE-C19, ZUMA-3) as an investigational therapy in several places.

Again, we’re reaching out in the hopes you may be able to assess the current state of the page against publicly available information on Kite to make accurate and appropriate updates. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Best regards,

Vtamgcih (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We do not use press releases as sources generally. Not see your comments on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi again,
I've included the disclosure language on my talk page rather than the user profile.
In support of the information announced in the press releases, we're including articles from Frederick News Post, FiercePharma and BioPharma Dive for your consideration regarding the manufacturing site. For the collaboration with Humanigen, please refer to a piece by Proactive Investors.
For the data mentioned above, the American Society of Clinical Oncology published two abstracts regarding the two-year sub-population analysis of efficacy and safety for its pivotal ZUMA-1 study in adults 65+ and with earlier steroid use and an abstract summarizing Phase 1 results for its ZUMA-3 study of investigational therapy KITE-X19 for ALL. These data were also discussed by BioSpace and FiercePharma. This may be relevant to show that there is follow-up data for Yescarta and that KTE-X19 is the investigational therapy used in the ZUMA-3 trial, not KTE-C19 as currently listed on the page.
We're not proposing any specific changes as we understand that does not adhere to policy. We are including resources that may be referenced to ensure the page is up-to-date with relevant information as the page does not provide the latest accurate information to the public. In this case, the timeline on the Kite Pharma page ends in 2017 with filing for European approval of Yescarta, when it received approval in 2018 which was reported in BioPharmaDive. The sources we've provided are similar to those currently used on the page.
Please let me know if you have any questions you'd like me to clarify. Vtamgcih (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:RS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
After reading through the guidelines for appropriate sources, I’ve readjusted resources to ensure that information is not taken from media or abstracts from conferences. I wanted to see if it’s possible to make correctional edits based on information found on government databases as I don't want to suggest sources regarding data or clinical information. As I mentioned earlier, the Kite Pharma page refers to ZUMA-3 as a trial for KTE-C19 in ALL. The National Cancer Institute, EU Clinical Trials Register and Canadian Cancer Trials have the investigational therapy listed as KTE-X19. As a general question, since the page provides more information about the company, do announcements like regulatory approval also need to be cited in review pieces and meta-analyses or does an announcement from a regulatory agency suffice given company press releases are not appropriate? At the moment, the page lists European filing in 2017 but since then the European Medicines Agency released an announcement in 2018 regarding approval for marketing authorization. Please let me know if these resources are sufficient for the changes to out-of-date information. If there's anything else you can share that can help me fully respect the rules regarding updates and sources, that would be greatly appreciated. Vtamgcih (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Delition of documented text

Sorry about that. I received a msg. saying that the Danish prices had been removed, not just moved. John.St (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It was moved to Sitagliptin/metformin#Price Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

You are a doctor and seem to know a lot about Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. I have been wondering for some time about how prions, which cause or are thought to cause CJD, are misfolded proteins. That seem to doesn't make sense to me because although misfolded proteins have definitivly been shown to have the ability to cause others to misfold (Protein misfolding cyclic amplification), the body has ways of dealing with the issue. It usually A: uses chaparone proteins to prevent misfolding, B: uses heat shock proteins to refold the protein back to it's original shape, and C: removes misfolded proteins (either by Ubiquitin degredation or by the cells expelling it from their cytoplasm through autophagy and ultimately out through urine). Do you know the mechanism by which Prions are able to evade all those mechanisms? If you know then let me know or ad a ref to the article, I think others would like to know also. I have tried to find answers in acidemic articles but couldn't find any. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Spidersmilk will look to see if I can find anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't read the entire thing right now (because it is not free open access) but I will save it and read it later.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the clarification of the history of the CopyPatrol tool (Eran's involvement). As soon as you said it, I realized it was a piece of information I knew but it had slipped my mind.

Curiously, I see it as a "small bit" if the subject at hand is how we address copyright issues, but it's a much more significant data point if the general subject is collaboration between the foundation and the community.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick with respect to the timeline of copypatrol. 1) a number of us at WPMED were dealing with a large numbers of copy violations related to certain school projects (ones not related to WikEDU) and we came up with the idea of copypatrol as a partial solution 2) a community member reached out to Turnitin to see if they would be willing to donate access to there API and they were 3) we roped in a volunteer programmer at Wikimania who put together a beta version in a few hours 4) Wikipedians began using the tool 5) further improvements to the tool were brought to the Community wish list and "won" support 6) community tech worked with the volunteer programmer to improve the tool in question.
Could we do the same with respect to images on Commons? Maybe... Does Turnitin do images? I will ask. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I feel like I'm not following something. I'm not understanding the need for the beta version using Turnitin. It sounds like you are rebuilding CopyPatrol, which doesn't make sense to me unless the school projects are not part of draft space. What am I missing? If they are creating these in Wikipedia I'd expect them to show up in CopyPatrol automatically.
Regarding Turnitin, I don't know much about it beyond what's written in our own article, but given the background, checking school essays for plagiarism, my guess is that it's text oriented rather than image oriented. It's been many, many years since I wrote a school essay, and while I can imagine they are more multimedia than in my day, my guess is that the plagiarism detector is still text oriented rather than images.
You may have seen some of the discussion regarding copyright detection of images. One point deserves some emphasis— there is a distinction between the workflows of checking all new edits or all new image uploads versus checking a large handful of instances. What we might have to pay to check all image uploads could be considerable, as there are literally millions, but checking images that are red flagged (missing EXIF) is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller.
I'm also having a little trouble following the Wikimedia email discussion. I get the impression someone thinks we used to have an agreement with Google images and no longer have such an arrangement. (This may also be related to the distinction between continuous checking and one-off checking.) I know that if you are looking at an image in Commons, e.g. Napheesa Collier, there's a drop-down option under "more" to do either Tineye search or a Google images search. So in the context of one-off reviews, I don't understand the discussion about making a financial arrangement with Google and setting up a test — I think we have it enabled already. That said, perhaps I'm missing something. I'll emphasize that I was moderately active in image copyright issues a few years ago but haven't been for the last couple years due to my emphasis on the info queue. Something I want to get back to but haven't managed to yet.S Philbrick(Talk) 21:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Sphilbrick I was involved with building "CopyPatrol" (the tool we use now) back in 2012. Here I have described how it was built. Further details are here Wikipedia:Turnitin. Copypatrol is build off a donation to the Wikimedia movement from Turnitin. We use their API.
Can we build a similar tool to Copypatrol but for images? Maybe... Would need an API that would do the automatic checking as soon as images are uploaded to Commons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, sorry for being dense. I now see that you were discussing the history of CopyPatrol. I mistkenly thought you were talking about a recent initiative.

Turning to images, conceptually it seems likely that a similar system could be built. Every image uploaded is allowed to be uploaded is checked against a database of images, and images with a match are sent to a report, and manually checked. We definitely would want someone with a lot more Commons experience than I have to look into next steps.

That said, I'll offer a suggestion that is simultaneously a complication but might help with funding. I am totally on board with the general policy that we do not want to be a host for copyrighted text or images and want to take steps to remove such violations as quickly as possible. This rationale has three justifications off the top of my head:

  1. It's simply the right thing to do
  2. It's the law
  3. Ignoring it has financial implications for the true copyright holder

While all three of those apply to both text and images, the set of affected parties is not exactly the same for text and images. While there is a lot of overlap, paid academic journals probably care more about text, while places like Getty images care more about images. Could we justify requesting grants from places like Getty images? We'd want to tread carefully so it doesn't come across as blackmail but a case could be made that we are making a good faith effort relying solely on volunteers and we could do a better job, which would be good for them financially if they were to help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if we need a grant yet. Eran was able to build the initial version of copypatrol in a few hours. We just need an API that can do the comparison. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, AFAIK, GoogleVision has a reverse-image-searching API; no clue about pricing, though. Someone from WMF might try to contact them ....... ∯WBGconverse 10:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Winged Blades of Godric and User:Sphilbrick someone from the community can also contact them :-) WP:Videowiki has been built entire by the community and it uses an API for a text to speech engine... Often one can initially use an API as a trial. The community can build the tool. Determine how many uses of the API are needed and than we can figure out the long term funding needed if a donation is not possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Here is another reverse image search: https://tineye.com/ --JBL (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks User:Joel B. Lewis emailed them a few hours ago :-) Who is going to do the programming once we get the API? We are planning on just running files with no EXIF data correct? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Acne Semi-Protect?

Hi James, I've noticed over time that there's a fair amount of vandalism (perhaps a few good faith edits) that occur on this page. Perhaps it should be auto-protected so only confirmed users can edit it for a while? Just a thought. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

User:TylerDurden8823 as I have worked a fair bit on that article best to bring it to WP:RPP. Not sure if there is sufficient issues to warrant protection yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
On further review, perhaps it's not enough to merit semi-protection. I'll keep an eye on it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Verification required

This edit [3] feels like emphasizing on something sounds incredible. Is that assertion added by User:Chrisk2000 really reliable and appropriate? Thanks. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved it to Suicide in China
This sums it up "Statistics are somewhat controversial in that independent studies often produce estimates that are greatly at odds with official statistics provided by the country's government"
User:It's gonna be awesome likely the stats need attribution regarding who said what. And popular press needs trimming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

HIFEM

Can we just WP:IAR delete it on the basis that it's total fuckin' quackery and an attempt to legitimize some garbage? :) Praxidicae (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Have redirected this brand name to the generic name per WP:PHARMMOS. Has warned the person who created it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Another simple question

Is the WMF Board actually doing anything about the Fram situation? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken discussion are ongoing... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate the response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Likewise over here too. Shearonink (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

An exceedingly simple question

Hey Doc, regardless of everything else: Can you just tell us whether Fram unequivocally breached the ToU clause that has been cited by the Foundation? (Section 4 - Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism; and transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users.) Was Fram blocked for an objective breach of this clause as it is written? Many of us are buying or at least questioning Fram's narrative that this is civility enforcement. A simple clarification that Fram engaged in one of these prohibited behaviors cited by the Foundation would do much to diffuse the community outrage. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Swarm: Obviously not James but the TOU has been written by legal experts and, contains subjective wordings which does not have a black-white territory, thus giving them ample space to maneuver, with utmost comfort.
    Fram had a non-optimal habit of combing contributions of a random quasi-competent/problematic editor and continuing to point out his errors to him. I think you will agree with that. The community agrees that such behavior is far away from the bright line of stalking/harassment and such screening of problematic folks is sometimes quite necessary. But, the view of the broader community does not mandate WMF to accept this argument and WMF may chose to side with the minority.
    The issue of deeming fuck ArbCom as a threat/harassment, can be lensed similarly.
    Shall I choose to be the devil's advocate, the TOU allows ample facilities to justify the ban of nearly every longstanding contributor.
    So, rather than asking about whether the TOU has been indeed violated, a better question is whether Fram violated the community-accepted benchmarks for the terms in Section 4 .... ∯WBGconverse 11:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric With respect, I'm not asking for an outsider's interpretation of the ToU. My understanding is that a ToU is a fairly objective legal contract, not subject to outsider opinion. I'm merely asking a board member who has been briefed on the violation if said violation was a breach of the ToU as written. If it is as you suggest, and the violation was subjectively a violation, as a matter of interpretation, then that is something that is important to the community. ~Swarm~ {sting} 11:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
As written the TOU is not an objective document. Almost none of them are, they are deliberately designed to be loose in definition as to allow infractions the broadest possible scope - should the company need to utilise it. The WMF's is no different in this regard. The key difference is that companies with a TOU will often have a supplementary guideline with examples of what does/does not constitute an infraction. Or a flat-out definitive list. I could point to any number of posts by almost any editor that could, with some fast talking, be seen to infringe the TOU as it is written. The problem here is that the WMF seems to be interpreting the TOU to encompass behaviour that has already been clearly laid out on ENWP as not problematic and redefining it as harrassment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
That is not to say there *isnt* behaviour that is clearly a violation of the harrassment section of the policy, but if there is, its not on-wiki in Fram's history, Fram is unaware of it, and the WMF T&S have provided zero evidence of it, not even to the person they are accusing of doing it. A situation that only tends to happen in countries where people are detained without trial, or executed for their political beliefs. "He was bad, trust us". Which I think most people can agree, is not appropriate on a project dedicated to open conversation and progress through consensus building. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Board of Trustees meeting update

Hello there.

The board of trustees meeting has now happened, but the community is still in the dark about what went on in it. As you are probably the member of that board who currently enjoys the greatest trust within the community, I'd ask you to make a statement updating us on what happened with respect to the recent Fram banning incident and surrounding events. If a statement is not ready, a timeline on a statement, or even an "I hear you and I'm working on it" would also be helpful. Right now the community has no clue what really happened, and no timeline for getting additional information. I understand that I'm writing this in the middle of the night your time, and I urge the rest of the community to recognize that too.

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tazerdadog discussion is ongoing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Sweet, Keep us informed, please. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Doc. Shearonink (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks from me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
So its quite a few hours since the board meeting. I will probably come off sounding demanding, but what are the chances of getting some answers to the core questions of a)Was this ban of Fram based entirely on on-wiki actions of Fram, b)why did the T&S not refer on-wiki behavioural issues to arbcom that had no legal or safety concerns, c)do they understand going forward this is not acceptable? Apologies for my tone, and the ineveitable tsunami of pings you are probably about to get. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
It seems the situation is still a bit unclear. Has the board decided, perhaps implicitly, that nothing can be said at this time? Is there even an official acknowledgement that the meeting happened? Benjamin (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure when a comment can be made, it will be. Demanding answers on our own timetable will not cause the process to accelerate. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Liz. ∯WBGconverse 03:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
With respect, information is not a 'process'. Two of my above 3 questions could and should have been answered within 24 hours by the WMF given they already knew the answers at the point they banned Fram, and the same questions were asked multiple times directly before and after the T&S 'responses'. We shouldnt have to get board members to do information gathering on our behalf when the T&S bans people and provides insufficient responses. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to continue bugging you, but is it possible at this point to get a rough timeframe for a substantive response? Even a rough guess, or a bound would be helpful (e.g. no sooner than Monday, or within 72 hours at the outside). This should give us clarity on how/when to respond appropriately. Thanks, Tazerdadog (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to rush you, but if you have decided to delay talking about it for some reason, could you at least say so, even if you can't say why? Benjamin (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. not keen on seeing this whole issue slip off the radar. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I am at work the next 9/10 hours. As a board we are working on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
And now? 172.58.139.188 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Could you at least clarify that you're not allowed to say anything about it yet, if that is the case? Benjamin (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It's been a few more days now. Shall I assume you're not saying anything because the board has asked you not to, or what? I presume you wouldn't be keeping the community in the dark if you had the choice, right? Benjamin (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Doc. Can you provide any substantive update? A statement, a timeline for the statement, a confirmation that the board is still working on this and/or a timeline for when the board will next discuss this issue would all be helpful. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The real issue you have is one of credibility. When you hurriedly announce "I am at work the next 9/10 hours. As a board we are working on this." it gives am impression of concerted activity. 4 days later without an update it looks like an intentional delaying tactic. Sorry. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Leaky caldron and Tazerdadog:, see this thread. ∯WBGconverse 10:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks WBG. I am not sure why an occasional but critical visitor to en-WP, a member of the Polish wiki, is acting as the quasi-official mouthpiece on the issue. The question remains for Doc James - what are YOU doing since your indication of action 4 days ago? Leaky caldron (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Color me, as one, who is dissatisfied with James' on-wiki responses. If the process is taking time, James needs to TELL that. If he feels that someone is asking about stuff, which he cannot entertain due to confidentiality agreements, he needs to TELL it; NOT ignore them. The more time passes, the more I am getting certain of this BoT stuff to be a tool in delaying the issue, unless we all forget it and go back to our newly designated roles of being sharecroppers. ∯WBGconverse 11:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Patience is a virtue. Doc is a volunteer like the rest of us. I don't know how he's handling everything he has on his plate now - it's amazing. What I'm most interested in right now is the hierarchal structure and legal governance. I'd also like to read the elusive constitution Jimbo and others have mentioned. Is there a link to it? Atsme Talk 📧 13:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme, Google is your friend. ‑ Iridescent 14:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
yes TY. Atsme Talk 📧 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tazerdadog, User:Leaky caldron, User:Winged Blades of Godric, and others. Yes the board is still working on this. No, there is no timeline for the statement. I am, of course, unable to speak on behalf of the board and am holding off on providing my personal position at this point in time. I am following most of what is being written in multiple spots. Also to clarify, the BoT does not interact directly with staff / make request of staff other than as a group to the executive or following agreement from the ED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I am quite contented to hear that there is no timeline for the statement. *Sigh* ∯WBGconverse 15:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Mention in upcoming issue of The Signpost

I realize you are on holiday now (enjoying the Selkirks maybe?). Just wanted you to know your name is included in a report about FRAMBAN in the upcoming issue of The Signpost. If you have any comments you can leave them on my talkpage or other Signpost official channels. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bri. Just got back and catching up. Was in the Rockies rather than the Selkirks but close :-) Signpost is looking good. Thanks to all those who have been working on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Phenobarbital

I noted your unexplained reversion of my edit. Would you mind letting me know why you don't think it's useful to the lay reader to distinguish Phenobarbital from sodium pentothal? Thx, Simon. 118.209.33.89 (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Because they do not sound the same and will not get confused. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure, they're not homophones but you're mistaken if you think that people don't confuse the two. People who partly remember something that they heard in a movie do confuse them. It's a simple hatnote not two paragraphs of exposition. I think we should be helping to make technical subjects easier and clearer for lay people. 118.209.33.89 (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Creating a list at the beginning of the article of possible words that someone somewhere might confuse is not appropriate IMO. Those are not similar enough for enough people to confuse them to justify a hatnote. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

images

I removed the images from Headache as they're trying to spam by the CC requirements which require linking their website (see the image link on commons) and I also feel in this case sit serves no value. I can't really elaborate more on how I know this is the intent cause..."reasons". Praxidicae (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'll just e-mail you. Praxidicae (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay thanks will reply to that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open!

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recen research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_151&oldid=904729295"