Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 156

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150←Archive 154Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157Archive 158→Archive 160

13 years

(Selected comments copied from Jimbotalk, where they are about to get be removed by the 3-day archiving)

On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against blind people. See phabricator T6845. This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit.

In particular, National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.

So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done") and a schedule for solving this?

And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks the name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

Regarding hiring someone else to fix this, I would very much like the idea to be given careful consideration rather than being dismissed out of hand. The WMF is great at running an encyclopedia. Nobody else, anywhere on earth, even comes close. However, running an encyclopedia does not magically confer the ability to create high-quality software, and the WMF has a pretty dismal track record in this area (Examples: Visual Editor, Flow, 13 years of failing to making this obvious but boring improvement to accommodate blind people.) I realize that this will anger some people, but why should it? Olympic-level athletes don't get angry when you tell them that their athletic ability does not magically confer the ability to repair automobiles or do astronomy.

Comments from the phabricator page:

  • "This doesn't just effect addition of external links, it also prevents new users from registering, requiring them to use ACC to request an account."
  • "There is no one currently assigned to this, so no one is taking it upon him to fix this at this moment. It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for, so it's not likely to be prioritized from that end."
  • The only thing stopping us from having an audio captcha is that nobody's put the work into implementing it yet." --Source: Chief MediaWiki developer as of 2008
  • "So the question is why has work not been put aside to fix an issue of recognised high importance that will, 13 years after first being raised, resolve an issue that results in us discriminating against people who are (in many jurisdictions) a legally protected minority?"

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon quoted from the phabricator page: It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for. This is likely not to be true. I realise the post was likely referring to teams on the technical side, but... if there is a mandate under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or subsequent legislation, then there is a team with responsibility at the WMF, its legal team (ping Interim General Counsel TSebro_(WMF)). There is also responsibility for legal compliance that goes to the CEO / ED (ping Katherine (WMF)) and ultimately, if management does not ensure compliance, to the Board (ping community trustees Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm). If putting into effect the excellent and appropriate 2006 non-discrimination principles stated by the Board or doing the right thing are not a sufficient motivators after such a long time, perhaps legal obligation / potential liability is a reason for action? I am assuming that everyone wants National Federation of the Blind v. WMF to remain a redlink, rather than becoming a sequel to National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.? 13 years without solving an issue like this – and one the Chief Mediawiki Developer recognised as only needing people to do the necessary work (according to Guy's phabricator page quotes) – sounds indefensible. As Churchill would have said: "Action, this day." EdChem (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Certainly something that needs to be fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, then you should hire developers to work on it. Something the foundation has never prioritized. Ask VolkerE, he has been asking for years internally. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree, this is certainly more than an "English Wikipedia" challenge - and if the Board of Directors think this is important, let your CEO know. — xaosflux Talk 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
If the board directs the WMF to fix this, might I request that it be done openly and transparently? I know how developers and their managers think, and there is a strong tendency to work on something like this without telling anyone, throw the result over the wall, then get all upset when the users reject your solution. The right way to do this is to first decide on the requirements (for those who aren't software developers, "requirements" is a code word for "before we start, we need to decide what 'done' means and how we will determine whether we are done"), then let me and other volunteers with skills in this area criticize and improve the requirements. You have a great resource in the form of volunteers like me. It would be stupid to waste that free resource. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo and Doc James, will the board be asking our CEO why this remains unfixed some time in the near future? Or will we be back here having this same conversation at 14 years and 15 years? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion we should double or triple the size of the community tech team. Per a number of people below appear to be lots of reasons why this needs to be fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: Please yes, a million times yes. This way things like the accessibility things would get done, as well as highly desired things like Article Alerts for more languages that apparently didn't get done for lack of resources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I am no fan of increased spending, but I strongly approve of doubling or tripling the size of the community tech team -- as long as at least half of the new hires are given the job of fixing boring bugs that have been around for years instead of working on huge new projects that are doomed to be rejected by the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: You also have my !vote (when is the new community wishlist going to be launched? I would be willing to add this as one of the 'meta wishes', lets see what the community thinks of this). Of course, this could also be (partially) solved by using the existing resources in other ways. I am not at all surprised that community members get pissed off at an unstoppable inflow of crap. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Have received a number of questions / replies about this. One question is are we clear on a solution? Is the ask to provide a voice related CAPTCHA? Do we have a clear indication from those who need this technology regarding what solution they want to see? I am not clear on why proposing solutions was discouraged?
With respect to getting the solution built we have a number of options including a GoSC student, the wishlist, and directly from staff. First we need to be clear on what solution we are looking for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Re "I am not clear on why proposing solutions was discouraged?" and "One question is are we clear on a solution?" we have been proposing solutions since February of 2006 and the problem is no closer to being solved. Proposing solutions is not working. Imagine for a moment that we were dealing with someone who who has a chronic medical condition that is normally easily treatable. What would be more effective; getting him in an examining room with a doctor who has been given the job of treating the patient, or two guys in a bar on the other side of town proposing and deciding on solutions to this medical problem, all without any actual contact with the patient or with anyone who can actually treat the condition?
That's the situation we are in now. You, as a board member, do not have the technical ability or authority to modify the Wikimedia software so that it no longer discriminates against a protected minority. You do, however, have the ability and authority to require someone at the WMF to answer the following questions:
  • What is the name of the WMF employee (or employees) who has been given the assignment of fixing this? Alternatively, when will that employee be named and by who?
  • What is the budget -- in other words how much does the WMF expect to spend on solving this? Alternatively, when will the budget be created, and by who?
  • What is the deadline -- in other words how long does the WMF expect it to take to solve this? Alternatively, when will the deadline be decided on, and who will make that decision?
  • Where will the software requirements be published, and how does the WMF propose that an independent third party can look at the results and verify whether the requirement were met?
Once we have a WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, an open conversation about possible solutions that includes that employee could be very productive. It isn't required, though. The politics of the WMF are such that any developer who tried such a stunt would most likely be fired. The way we normally do things around here is to have someone work on a problem in secret (possibly with "community surveys" but never an open discussion), come up with a solution, and then try to ram it down the community's throat. But that is a separate problem that we will not solve here, and one that doesn't need to be solved in order to solve our discriminating against the blind problem. All we need to do is to answer my four questions above. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
We have someone who has taken on trying to solve this problem per the ticket.[1] They are a contractor with the WMF from what I understand. This is not an easy problem obviously, with a lot of balancing issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Did the WMF give this contractor the assignment of fixing this, or are they volunteering to fix it without being paid? If the latter. will WMF management either allow them to make changes to our software or assign someone who has the job of evaluating their solution and deciding whether to implement it?
Any proposed "solution" needs to include the name of an WMF employee (or contractor) who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I am having a bit of a quandary here.

I see "I'll try to get more educated on the topic, and hopefully give more information in the coming weeks" at [ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6845 ] but nothing since.

I am seeing the same thing at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James#13_years ]: "working on it" then nothing.

The cynic in me says that if I keep patently waiting nothing will happen and after a while I will be posting a "14 years" complaint, but it I start making noise about hearing nothing I will be embarrassed to discover that someone has been furiously working on this and watch as they change the Wikimedia software in a way that solves everything -- 15 minutes after I hit send on my complaint.

I am left with these known facts:

  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to assign an employee or contractor the task of fixing this problem.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to budget a single dollar towards fixing this.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to provide an estimate of how long it is expected to take to fix this.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to write any requirements for fixing this. ("Requirements" is geek talk for "please define what 'done' is and how we will recognized that whoever is working on this is done")
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to make a plan for an independent third party (which in this case means "someone with a visual impairment accessing Wikipedia with a screen reader") to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

So I ask the community: how long is a reasonable time for me to patently wait without any updates before going back to complaining about WMF inaction? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a full fledged requirements gathering phase isn't necessary. Could the problem be solved my someone at WMF (or contract support) answering a phone call? What's the call volume we are talking about here? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
If you don't have a set of requirements you don't know when you are done, or indeed what you were supposed to do. Requirements can be very informal -- just a developer writing down what he thinks "done" means and seeing if the boss and/or customer disagrees -- or they can be very elaborate, but if you don't have any requirements you are free to do things like do nothing and declare that you are done or do something that in no way resembles anything the boss and/or customers wanted. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Meet with Evan at Wikimania and they are looking at it. Not a simple problem obviously. I think it is reasonable to give them 6 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. If nothing happens by 03 February 2020 (that's 5 months from now) you can expect to see messages on various talk pages with the title "14 years".
One would only hope that Evan would post a progress report on the phabricator page some time in the next five months. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Certainly :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Metronidazole benzoate

Hi There, thanks for the edits on my clumsy edits re: metronidazole benzoate and the (I suspect) myth that post-gastric delivery is a problem.

I haven't got access to Kucers' myself, but am doing what I can to get access from colleagues.

I wonder is ref 13 on the metronidazole page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metronidazole should be removed entirely as it makes an assertion without evidence - and as I noted, in personal communication, the authors were unable to provide a source.

One said "maybe Martindale" but Martindale doesn't support it either.


What do you think?

Do you happen to have access to the monograph in Kucers' you could share? or give me references from Kucers'?

I have a suspicion that this is nothing other than a longstanding, clinically irrelevant myth that refuses to die, but I'm more than happy to be proved wrong!


Kind Regards TheConfusion (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is the link https://books.google.ca/books?id=3xE4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1818 and it says GI track rather than stomach. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This ref however fully supports. https://books.google.ca/books?id=mSzs_8ijZpgC&pg=PA355 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
TheConfusion (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC) The whole thing is a mess of circular references. People quote Martindale which talks of hydrolysis in the GI Tract, not stomach. "Handbook of Drug Administration via Enteral Feeding Tubes"(HODAVEFT) mis-quotes Martindale by stating hydrolysis happens in the Stomach (rather than GI tract).
This paper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0026265X88901889?via%3Dihub (abstract only) clearly suggests metronidazole benzoate undergoes base-hydrolysis, not acid-hydrolysis.
This paper https://www.longdom.org/open-access/degradation-study-of-metronidazole-in-active-and-different-formulation-by-uv-spectroscopy-jbb.1000191.pdf suggests little degradation of metronidazole benzoate in either 1M HCl or 1M NaOH... I'm not in the least convinced that gastric acid has any relevance.
Kuchers clearly states GI tract, not stomach. Dickman states "Stomach acid" but with no reference.
The "NEWT" guidelines are widely quoted as saying stomach acids are required - Newt references Martindale, which doesnt support the statement, HODAVEFT (which misquotes Martindale), and a random local hospital guideline (which I bet is based on a circular reference, not evidence).
essentially, due to the dearth of evidence I call bullshit on gastric acid being required. I'd accept that diarrhoea and fast transit time may be a problem, not giving time for hydrolysis and absorption, but having said that, for certain things you WANT delivery of freshly lysed metronidazole to the distal GI tract, not near-complete absorption in the upper GI tract and ileum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheConfusion (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
User:TheConfusion what refs do you want to use to say what? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"This may require hydrolysis in the gastrointestinal tract" probably wants referencing to Martindale, which is here: https://about.medicinescomplete.com/publication/martindale-the-complete-drug-reference/ but not open access. Martindale appears to be the source of much of the "hydrolysed in the GI tract" narrative, but even they don't provide a supporting reference for the statement.

This paper( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1427741/pdf/brjclinpharm00190-0049.pdf) on benzoylmetronidazole's pharmacokinetics states "Benzoylmetronidazole has been formulated to hydrolyse in the gastrointestinal tract to release therapeutic doses of metronidazole over a period of several hours". I can't imagine that as little as 5 minutes spent in the stomach matters that much. TheConfusion (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Why did you delete the article?

The submission was declined, updated and resubmitted. It's more than 10 weeks waiting a review, and I found out that it the title existed without content, prompting a re-creation with the title.

May you look at it, if it doesn't fly then leave it such, but if it does, re-instate it, then the other draft be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pshegs (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The draft is Draft:CKay. Ping User:CASSIOPEIA Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

temp

Doc James, I modified my edit and included a couple of references. Please note that no reliable medical sources state that temperatures measured at the axilla and tympanic membrane are comparable. According to every reliable medical source, temperatures taken at the tympanic membrane roughly equate to rectal temperatures. Many sources also include measurements at the temporal artery. 156.204.50.103 (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Adjusted a bit.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram case nears conclusion

The Arbitration Committee, having reviewed the evidence presented to them by WMF Trust & Safety and the community, have found Fram's one year ban imposed by WMF to have been disproportionate and have set it aside, while stripping him of administrator status pending a new Referral for Adminship vote for "a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures."

Do you have an opinion about the structure of this case and this particular result? What will you do to insure that WMF respects the result? Carrite (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Carrite When the case was handed over to arbcom I made it clear at the time that I will stand 100% behind whatever decision arbcom makes and that is still my position. With respect to the structure of this case, it was an exceptional event and I do not consider that it should form a precedence going forwards. Changing to usual structure of cases should follow community discussion and consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Carrite (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@James:- Two questions for you, that we are nearing the end of this show:-

(1) JBHunley has since discovered evidence, that a certain user who is obviously conflicted with a current Board Trustee, has engaged in paid-editing for years without any disclosure and moreover, actively denied, when asked about it. What's your views about the overall optics of this specific situation, at a time when WMF is supposedly trying to fight UPE and thus enforce TOU, actively?

(2) Do you determine edits like these to be in spirit of some part of WP:SOCK (I'm hinting at a specific bright-line but can't be more specific)? Notwithstanding technical violation/abidance of policies, do you think that obviously-conflicted users can behave in such a manner without disclosures?

Regards, ∯WBGconverse 16:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric (1) There was disclosure on meta for the 2011 time frame.[2] Yes they were acknowledged here in 2018[3] but unclear if they were being paid then.
(2) These are definitely two different people so do not see how sock applies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The last time I checked the policies, COI/PE disclosures needed to be made in en-wiki. Further, to the best of my knowledge, Australian Paralympic association is entirely outside of the purview of Wikimedia. Why not next, point to an Upwork site and say that the conflicts/paid-editing/whatever were acknowledged?
WP:FAMILY states If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics. ∯WBGconverse 18:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the problem with my addition to Glioblastoma / Research / Virology?

Ran0t0 (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ran0t0 We are looking for references per WP:MEDRS. A phase one trial does not make such a claim and it is an insufficient source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok, reviewing WP:MEDRS now - thanks. Ran0t0 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Leprosy

Hi James, I read through the leprosy article and tried to improve readability and fill a few gaps with the WHO clinical guideline. If you have a chance please let me know what you think and adjust as necessary. The Cochrane skin collaborators are having it ready by another expert and then I think we are closer to being ready to submitting it to WikiJournal of Medicine. Thanks! JenOttawa (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User:JenOttawa thanks will take a look :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Folate GA

A reviewer has started the process on my nomination of Folate as a Good Article. I would appreciate your continuing to keep an eye on this effort as it proceeds. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have it on my watchlist. Will look at the comments. Main thing IMO is to try to keep as much as possible in reasonably accessible language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Tinnitus

Hi Doc, This refers to following revision [[4]]. I don't challenge your medical expertise, but I feel alternative viewpoints must be given a place in the article, especially when they claim this to be something as important as the path to find the very purpose of our being, the source and seed of the creation. I read somewhere that : A true sceptic is the one who sees his scepticism with scepticism. We must keep questioning the established truths, and allow discussions on alternative opinions. Request you to please go through the mentioned pages : Nadabindu Upanishad, Nāda yoga and Surat Shabd Yoga. What modern medicine considers a disease, has been mentioned in ancient oriental texts as an umbilical chord connecting human beings to the ultimate reality - "The Word" (mentioned in Christianity as : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"-Logos (Christianity), in Hinduism as : Om).

I'm not sure whether I can convince you with this or not, I can only say that readers have the right to have knowledge of existence of an alternative explanation. Agreeing or disagreeing can be left to the reader. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks & Regards. --Anamdas (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Could go in the article about Nada yoga maybe. HuffPost contributors / blog are not a suitable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Alessio Bidoli

@Doc James:

Dear Doc james, I would like to know how to delete the template opened on the Alessio Bidoli page where a conflict is reported. The page appears to be written correctly. Can you tell me about any improvements? I would like to delete the box where you talk about the conflict. Do you give me some advice? Kind regards

Violinologo54 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What is your relation to the subject? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Rebranding

Any comments as to this thread? Do you have any comments on the theme of this mail? ∯WBGconverse 14:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric I have been involved with the founding of two affiliates (Wikimedia Canada and Wiki Project Med Foundation). Potential partners would often say when told we are "Wikimedia Canada" you mean "Wikipedia Canada" correct? Back than I wanted to go with the name "Wikipedia Canada" but was not allowed too. That groups that want to use the Wikipedia brand name will be allowed to I think is a positive. From what I understand this is an opt-in (so that group that want to stick with what they are using now can).
Currently we already shorten "Wikimedia Commons" to simple "Commons". Most of the others projects use "wiki" which flows easier off the tongue "WikiVoyage". Redirecting "Wikipedia Voyage" to "WikiVoyage" sounds like that would be perfectly reasonable to try to see if it increases traffic. As would redirecting "Wikipedia Commons" to "Commons" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
(Out of curiosity, did the branding folks claim to the board that the original proposal received a supportive or neutral response, as opposed to the actual very clear opposition?)
While not nearly as problematic as forcing rebranding on every project, there are clearly downsides to allowing organizations to use the Wikipedia brand as well as benefits. The community should have a say in this decision, and it's not particularly encouraging when participation is met with the WMF pretending that the results were the opposite of the actual sentiments expressed. The whole "we will consider anything less than 1800 statements of opposition to indicate strong support" thing is really disheartening. --Yair rand (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
It was presented as mixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks but that's not what I asked for, though. I know that there are potential benefits to the proposal (as much as there exist certain downsides).
I pointed to a specific thread about WMF's analysis of polling data, which has been critiqued by at-least 8 editors (over. the mailing list and linked section). And, a specific email from a steward which highlighted the repeated flaws in how WMF goes about in these adventures and how they smooth-en the path for a huge blowout. ∯WBGconverse 05:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what "smooth-en the path for a huge blowout" means? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, smoothen is defined in OED as deal successfully with. Blowout, is a jargon for petrochemical disasters wherein there is a sudden uncontrolled release of crude, post failure of safety valves and other apparatus. Some of the latter have happened due to over-eager exploitation of resources w/o bothering to consult (and value) all stakeholders.
To stay away from the metaphor, it was about how perpetually shabby dealings by WMF merely facilitates another full-blown fracas with the community and incorporates trust-deficits.
I hope that my query is now clear enough:-) FWIW, MERC has hit the nail, over meta :- It distorts the feedback from the community in order to justify the predetermined outcome .... There is a long term issue that can only be solved by devising ways of sanctioning WMF staff who repeatedly step outside their remit as a facilitator of the various communities. ∯WBGconverse 13:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Winged Blades of Godric The idea about improving branding has been around for years. Reducing confusion for our external partners is one of the proposed benefits. Wikipedia versus Wikimedia versus Wiki is really inside baseball (and unfortunately we do not own Wiki). A bunch of organizations / people within our movement support more flexibility around branding and more flexibility to experiment, which is what this proposal suggests. From what I understand it is going to be an opt in such that those who want to see what effects this has can.
With respect to the specifics around how numbers are calculated, what was presented to us was more of a high level of the mixed perspects within our movement on this topic. Could the numbers be crunched differently, sure. But if "Wikimedia X" also wants to operate under "Wikipedia X" they should be able to make that decision IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why accomplishing that would require a forced rebranding of the projects and the WMF... (Also, I don't think that 92.5% opposed really counts as "mixed".) --Yair rand (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Were does it say a "forced" rebranding? From what I understand this is opt in... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, So, organizations, groups and projects can opt-in to using "Wikipedia" as their brand? Is that decided? And will the board approve re-branding the Foundation using "Wikipedia", as either a name change or d/b/a? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
From what I understand that is what has been suggested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gerda Arendt :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Pilocarpine

FYI, I have requested a 3rd opinion: Vitreology talk 01:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggested for the Board of Trustees

An IP recently made this observation: [5], and I agreed and expanded upon it here: [6]. Here is what Katherine (WMF) replied: [7], see the last paragraph. I've taken particular notice of where she cites "a board-approved process", so it looks to me like the Board really needs to take the lead on it. And I think that some Board members (including Jimmy) are receptive to taking a look at it. I hope that you will take this issue up with the rest of the Board. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish thanks for the heads up. The board will be discussing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's discuss this.

Doc,

I wanted to chat with you to see if we can straighten some things out. I'm making a point of not filling this with policy and guideline shortcuts, because I'd just like to have a chat. I'd really like to come to an agreement and understanding which would negate the need to escalate a dispute about disruptive editing to ArbCom.

The community clearly understands and greatly appreciates your significant contributions to Wikipedia, as do I. You are obviously recognised as a senior leader in the community. However, there are ways to good ways to lead (ie, bringing the people with you), and there are bad ways to lead (ie, alienating/ostracising others).

You seem to be micromanaging a lot of articles that fall under the wikiproject (med) umbrella. You know, sometimes it's really helpful just to let people have some liberty about the way they do things. I'd like to see you lead by focusing much more on building morale, keeping everyone working together harmoniously, as a big happy family, and to take a 'bigger picture' perspective.

  • I'm sure this is what you would do during a resus. Please take more of a hands off approach.

Please make suggestions, not reverts. The way you're reverting articles is not cool. It actually comes across as really rude, and most of the time it's just simply unnecessary. It's even worse if it's clear the OP put a lot of time and effort into the edit. If you really must - ie, if there is a genuinely important reason to - please just make the least drastic little change necessary in order to satisfy the policy/guideline. Don't revert everything just because of a trivial little technicality. And especially, don't revert so soon, ie, while the OP is still sitting back, admiring the hard work they've put into their contribution they've made. It's really just an unnecessary dick move doing this kind of stuff.

If you revert an article, please don't give a misleading edit summary. And don't wait until you're just outside of a 24h window to do your 3rd revert. Doing this makes it seem like you're trying to game the system. People closely following the article know exactly what has happened; no wool is being pulled over anyone's eyes. But more importantly, doing this kind of thing lessens respect from your peers (like me).

Please, Doc, just pull your socks up, will you? You're better than all this. You've achieved so much via Wikipedia. It's damn impressive. Don't get involved in stupid spats about nitty gritty trivial content on pages.

When you are wrong, please proactively acknowledge it. For instance, in my case on Pilocarpine, you were correct:

  • Ocular hypertension is sometimes treated, and pilocarpine is sometimes used to treat ocular hypertension. Yep, got me.

But don't relentlessly challenge people, particularly in their field of expertise, if the matter you're discussing really doesn't matter anyway. Doctors invest a hell of a lot of time in their training. You can relentlessly challenge their understanding of a topic within their field of expertise. You can pick and prod and engage in days and days of debate. And you might end up being correct. But don't forget, that you may win the battle but lose the war. That same doctor will probably be less likely to make the effort, and just pull the plug on contributing to wikipedia, which would be a shame, particularly when you're both playing on the same team. All editors, but particularly trained doctors, have a wealth of knowledge they can contribute to wikiproject (medicine).

I really want to be able to work together on articles.

You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

That's all I've got to say for now. I hope we can move forward constructively, come to a common understanding and treat this as just water under the bridge. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks mate. Vitreology talk 13:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Vitreology. I as well hope that we can work together as equals :-) With respect to the use of easier to understand language, I truly believe that this is a critical aspect for us to work towards. A bunch of us have brought the reading level for the leads of our articles from grade 15 to grade 12 (I do not think we should make it easier than this by the way).
I appreciate your expertise. You are correct that ocular hypertension does not always need treatment and that article could really use further clarification about the range of appropriate practices. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Always happy to change my position when sources show my current position is wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_156&oldid=918747461"