Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 88

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A statement regarding my removal

[edit]

I have been accused of three things by fellow board members:

  1. Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of the board and have never given assurances that I could convince other trustees. I would be interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation but I consider it unfounded.
  2. Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed for greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I have made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and community members and used independent judgement.
  3. Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not asked by other board members at any time before its publication to produce a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put together a few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by myself here. I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the purpose of producing such a statement.

I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the movement and the WMF.

P.S. This statement also on Wikimedia-l[1]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to make it more clear by whom you were accused – the first two could be construed as the reason for your removal. Prodego talk 01:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it went this way for you. (in my experience, substantive communicating with staff by board members - except executive(s)- is generally frowned on - there is a bit of respect chain of command rationale to it - bylaws usually warn against it.) At any rate, my best for the New Year. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The concern was not that I spoke with staff. It was done with the awareness and thus implicit consent of the chair or [explicit consent of an] executive. The claim is that I misled staff which I deny. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah this answers one of my questions below. You avoided the risk by seeking [implicit] consent of the executive, yes? Would the executive agree about 'implicit', to you knowledge?Peter Damian (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was implicit consent of the chair or explicit consent from an executive Best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been on a couple boards myself and this is a common convention. But the scandal-ridden world of corporate America is not the best example to draw from. WMF is in San Francisco, and the bureaucratic model where all information flows down through a bottleneck and hits the peons slaving away who are unable to push any feedback up, is known as the waterfall model. It's a flawed model and discouraged for good reason. I have yet to find anything which codifies not speaking to staff in WMF's documents, although a staffer disclosed that staff communication was at one point forbidden, which may explain James' removal. In any case, fear-driven organizations without open communication will drive away the best software developers who can find more flexible and functional organizations to work for in the highly-competitive software job market. At least that's my two cents, as a software developer in San Francisco. II | (t - c) 09:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that anyone's asked my opinion, or invited me to this conversation, but I've long thought that moving the Wikimedia Foundation to San Francisco was a bad decision. II, your comment reminded me of that thought. -- llywrch (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. A resignation would have been a tacit admittance. Now it is time the remaining board members, and their future appointees, are held to answer, and should that answer disparage you, me thinks a neutral magistrate should be moved to clear your name. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Dariusz Jemielniak has also weighed in here. He says "I myself considered voting in favor of the resolution. I also believe that others reasonably considered their vote. James himself recognized his errors and admitted that he made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board member. Our collective decision was carefully thought through. I also understand well the reasons of many Board members who voted as they did." Peter Damian (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

logic dictates that without "knowing the true reason", this is non-objective ....as stated below I support Doc James (and so do many others)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

Many thanks for posting this James. Some questions, if that’s OK.

  1. Communicating with staff is not necessarily a problem, but there are two risks (1) you may be seen to be undermining the executive or C-level type roles (2) you may risk the jobs of staff members – they mention something to you, you raise it at board level or elsewhere, it gets back to some manager, staff gets it in the neck. How did you take care to avoid these risks?
  2. You mention the allegation about ‘releasing private board information’, which you deny. Were there any specific instances given to you in your discussions with the Board over the last few months? You don’t need to go into the specifics themselves, just confirm whether instances were given or not.
  3. You say “I have however pushed for greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities.” Again, I understand you can’t go into specifics, but why should transparency, properly understood, ever conflict with the principles of confidentiality?
  4. ”I have made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and community members and used independent judgement.” What does ‘independent judgment’ mean? You mean you consulted other independent parties? Or that you used your own judgment?

Peter Damian (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this[2] is a very good statement by Doc James, I support him 100%--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will run again. (Otherwise, boycotting this board and its elections is better than giving them legitimatation through participating in the election). Sargoth (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is just one of many canaries in coalmines. An early sign of problems that should be noticed. In the interactions I have seen you do on articles I have edited, it was always at a very high level of integrity. In an over used expression, it was/is simply professional.
I believe its just another aspect of Wikipedia that needs to be examined by Wikipedia. There are ample signs, and if all the signs are ignored the patient will get sicker. It is my view, that the processes of Wikipedia that were established and now being gamed by many long time editors. Literally like video game exploits, methods have been learned to push other editors, silence them. I don't know the extent or the facts of your matter, it is likely much different than my experiences to date, but I recognize you as Canary, that should be thriving. I can say that when it comes to the level of you needed to defend yourself from accusations of integrity....its a problem in the entire system. It's something that staff for Wales, or whoever is running the show, need to look at. Processes are failing, items are being gamed, warning signs are being rallied to for support of the actions, rather than examination of what and why its failing. Long way of saying, your obvious integrity is indelible by evidence and action. Mystery Wolff (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mystery Wolff thank you for your support. I will comment further soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peter Damian with respect to your questions:

  1. With respect to protecting staff, other board members were having similar conversations.
  2. I have not been been given specifics regarding justification for my removal. While it has been claimed that I misled staff, whom these concerns came from or what they were specifically is unknown to me.
  3. Another justification put forth for my removal was my pushing for an open discussion of the long term strategy of the WMF. If some within our movement wish the long term strategy to remain a secret or obscur and do so in the name of confidentiality than yes confidentiality and transparency come into conflict.
  4. “Independent judgement” means that I used my own judgement.

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Doc. I am still puzzled by the contrast between what you say here, and what Jimmy and others said. Peter Damian (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Peter Damian We all agree that there was a lack of mutual trust. They state there was no specific issue that they based this on. I have provided their accusations and my rebuttal the best I understand them.
Jimmy states it was with "cause". I guess if "lack of mutual trust" is "cause" sure. Otherwise he may have simply over spoke.
If when they says they "lacked sufficient confidence in his discretion [and] judgment", they mean they did not have confidence I would agree with them in the future sure. The WMF is now beginning to release some details regarding the issues I pushed them on which is good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks James. But I am still mystified. He says:
"You have a statement from the entire board, signed by every member, indicating that what he said about why he was dismissed was simply not true. What further proof do you want? This is not a rhetorical question - what is it that you really want to see? I was there, I was on the phone call, and what he's claiming as a reason for dismissal is was never even mentioned by anyone as a reason for the dismissal. He now says - latest story - that it was for "talking to staff" - we all talk to staff in various ways. He knows that isn't the reason, either. Ask him why he's not telling you the full story.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)"[reply]
What is this 'he knows that isn't the reason, either'. Even by Wikipedia standards, this is very strange. Peter Damian (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Peter Damian I do not know. I have bits and pieces of fellow board members sending me "reasons". And have simply tried to address the ones they have sent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My support to you. --Csisc (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Varicocele

[edit]

Hellow, Doc James.

Perhaps you can explain it to this user better than me: [3]

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hum thanks. I have trimmed the primary sources and move to the causes section User:BallenaBlanca. Still need to verify that the remaining sources still support any of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Integrity

[edit]
The Barnstar of Integrity
You're simply a stand up guy.....keep doing right by Wikipedia...the rest of us are behind you en masse!!!! Moxy (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC) [fixed typos -- Klortho (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)][reply]
Thank you for your vote of confidence User:Moxy. As I stated to the Signpost "Yes, there are definitely certain aspects that need to be kept confidential, but this should not extend to the overarching strategy at the WMF. In a movement like ours these discussions need to be public."[4] I will do my best to keep doing right by Wikipedia :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit request for abortion

[edit]

Hi Doc James - could you please take care of this minor edit which I have requested? I have written on the Abortion talk page the following:

Currently the introduction says "The drugs mifepristone and prostaglandin are as good as surgery during the first trimester." Surely nobody thinks abortion drugs are "good". Can an editor please use the word "efficient", so: "The drugs mifepristone and prostaglandin are as efficient as surgery during the first trimester."
I think that they are very good and if I were a young woman with several kids already and working at a minimum wage job in the US where I was getting a salary that hardly even covers child care for the ones I've already got, I'd say that they are very, VERY good. Gandydancer (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Which is just a little statement on my part and not to say that the wording may need to be changed. :-)) At any rate, Doc is not in charge of the article and it is best to leave this sort of comment off of his page. Gandydancer (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about "works as well as" I prefer simpler language. Feel free to copy my comments to where ever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has now suggested "effective", which I think is the best solution.
Works as well as is even simplier Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider and Reinstate Doc James

[edit]

Dear Doc James,

I want to share that I support you and want to help. Are there ways we as individuals could exert pressure through social media, blogs etc or any other way to help this board see the light of day. Frankly you are the best thing to happen for Wikipedia in terms of medicine, healthcare and research. You have developed a habitable climate and found resources so clinicians and all those with a interest in Health can participate and do this well. Cochrane would not have been able to share involvement had you not cleaned up the process, quality and Wikipedia editorial process. You have greatly increased and garnered respect for Wikipedia with publishers, educational institutions, clinicians, regulators and the public. Medical Wikipedia is sometimes the only resource those in developing nations have access to and you have made this available in multiple ways.

Please do not forget who you are and the incredible path you have paved in the face of this unwelcome and ill advised activity. Remember your greatness because it is within you and will produce again where ever it is planted. Also look after you, there are so many that respect you from a distance and life is a marathon not a sprint. The best solution for those who seize power to promote themselves and bring harm is to out produce them and to maintain your sanity and joy. Make them fight for every inch of ground it is not in any ones best interests that cares about health for you to give up ground.

Best Amy AmyEBHC (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:AmyEBHC I am indeed a marathon runner and am in this for the long haul. I appreciate your support and believe that as a community we can figure this out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My support to you. --Csisc (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New or old editor

[edit]

Hi Dr. Heilman! I am currently still using the older version with the wiki code, and I just finished up with some of the last articles for Cochrane Hypertension. Is the new version much easier to use? Andrewparkmcdonald (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Andrew McDonald[reply]

I still like the old one better. I have provided you a link on your talk page to some helpful tools for ref formatting. Thanks for joining us by the way :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dentistry

[edit]

Hi there, I've been dabbling a little in Wikipedia and am aware that most of the dental information is really poor. I've edited a few pages but I think the whole thing could do with a makeover of the key pages: dental caries and dental trauma primarily (being a paediatric dentist I suppose I would pick them). I've tidied a few bits in both but what I'd really like to do is get the Dentistry WikiProject going. I'm still trying to find my way around the editing but plan to spend a bit more time on it so wondered if you could give a few words of advice. I've started reading but there's a lot out there. Thanks, Nicola Npt1 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We had one very active dentist User:Ian Furst
There is WP:Dentistry
The number of editors on Wikipedia however is fair small. We are happy to have allied health people join us at WP:MED aswell and are happy to comment on dental issues. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JMIR Wiki Medical Review

[edit]

Hi James. I'm going through some of WMEDF's meta documentation. Did JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews go ahead and is it still a thing? If not, may I remove it from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Project_Med#Quality_control_and_peer_review ? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a thing. You could submit an article to them if you want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. My next FA. :o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental Meditation

[edit]

Hello, I asked for Dispute resolution here [5] best regards Jdontfight (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WMF Trustees are busy intimating, now we need you to fill in the blanks

[edit]

LINK

You clearly said something to somebody that got the majority faction riled enough to sack you. What, exactly or in very general terms, was the nature of the transgression? Also: do you have any thoughts about the connection between the WMF Board of Trustees and Google? "Interlocking directorates" might be overstating it, but are the areas of overlap between Google insider status and WMF Trustee insider status accidental, in your opinion? Is it problematic? Carrite (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Carrite thanks for pointing this out. I will prepare a reply.
I agree that their was no "specific action" on my part that resulted in my removal. It was however at least partly related to differences in opinion.
They have not further commented on the claim that I mislead staff. Some staff replied here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohs surgery

[edit]

Hello Doc James,

I had Mohs surgery last month and have added an image I took of my own ear to the article. Please let me know if, in your opinion, there is anything inappropriate about how I have used this image. Thank you.

(On the other matter, my support of you and your advocacy of WMF transparency remains firm.) Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good User:Cullen328 :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

[edit]

Request for your feedback, on an AE regarding ECIG Articles.

[edit]

Hello, you are a recent editor of Electronic Cigarettes, I am asking for your input to an Arbitration Enforcement Request AE. Found here. If you have time I would appreciate your input. The items in question are listed out 1-8. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mystery_Wolff
Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will look. But travelling. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mystery Wolff appears it is already closed. Not much on can do at this point in time except move on to other topics areas that interest you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing just now. I am terribly disappointed with this outcome, especially since I had just asked all editors of the pages to comment. Only one editor was driving this. Given this was reported about my interactions with other editors, I think it would have been appropriate, I had said that you were going to take a look at it because you are a frequent editor, had reverted and then replaced one of my edits, and the larger topic of MEDRS in articles that are only tangentially related to medical claims. I honestly am flabbergasted that items that were reverted and the reverted version in place, is used as a indefinite topic ban, as the first action. I have subject matter experience and interest in Electronic Cigarettes, so offering to volunteer effort into other articles is rather an off-putting consolation prize. What is a particular displeasure is not a single Admin pointed at any of my edits. Instead said the topic area by itself is not suitable to new editors. And zero other dispute resolution avenues were attempted. Feels very much like a "hanging judge". I will appeal, but it feels very much like favoritism, cliche's, and egos, rather than impartial collaboration. I have not given up on the process yet, I have been here a short enough time to know all the interactions, so I will appeal.
A professor once told me the biggest word he would teach that actually had meaning was deratimorphication, where scientist put rats in a very large box, at first things are fine, but over time they build up little bunkers and turfs, and eventually begin to war with each other. The solution (the "de" part) is to shake the box, breakup all the wood chip structures....and then the whole process restarts. I dare say Wikipedia is approaching this. Indefinite ban for as first sanction is certainly a war footing. The nail that sticks up gets pounded down. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can appeal in 6 months per the resolution. Typically people who deal with this sort of stuff do not consider appeals until the stated time. E cigs are a controversial area unfortunate. I have not been paying attention to it much lately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honest face

[edit]

I'd never heard of you until a few moments ago (the real you that is not the Wiki-editor) now I've researched you. Reading what I've read and who's saying what, coupled with the fact that you have a very honest looking face - I trust what you're saying is true. I'm never wrong when I make snap judgements on character and integrity. So good luck. Giano (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pained

[edit]

Dear Sir, I feel pained by your removal. There can be no doubt about your contributions to the Wikipedia especially to medical articles. I am sure that there is some misunderstanding. I have not seen a better contributor and motivator to edit medical articles than you! Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Abhijeet Safai. It is an unfortunate situation and yes their appears to be a fair bit of misunderstanding :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know you at all, whatsoever, but having just read your material on paid editing I am feeling pained as well. I don't like the slur on your character. I think that's objectionable and that you should give your side of the story in full here or somewhere else of your choosing, unless there is a clear reason why you can't. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Coretheapple I have given much of my side of the story. The response has been less than positive from other board members both publicly and privately. An external review may be useful to look at further details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unless I've missed it, it's kind of spread around various locales. Indeed, an independent and respected external review would be useful. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good overview here [7] by Bill. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Might be nice to see a Signpost article from you on this, or perhaps even Wikipediocracy? It's run by Wikipedia administrators, so I am sure that whatever you do there will be fine from a Wikipedia standpoint. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, I read the article in The Wikipedian that you just linked to, and I have a question. I realize that you might choose not to answer, and if so, that's fine, but I figure it's worth asking. The author of that article seems to draw a conclusion about the general issue over which you were removed, and you just said that it's a "good overview". Does that mean that the author got it approximately right? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tryptofish IMO yes much of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ICD 10 says OCD is an anxiety disorder

[edit]

Hi, you recently made a change to the OCD article, saying "DSM does not say OCD is an anxiety disorder". DSM is a US only manual. You're right that DSM 5 doesn't list OCD as an anxiety disorder, but DSM 4 did, and you should probably include that somehow. But, more importantly, ICD 10, from the World Health Organisation says that OCD is an anxiety disorder. Here's one link, there are many others. http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/F01-F99/F40-F48/F42-/F42 82.132.222.241 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have adjusted here [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chloramphenicol and the ear

[edit]

Hello Doc James, I was reading your article on chloramphenicol. Tonight, I was looking for a cure to my son's apparent ear fungus going on for over two months. When googling otomycosis "gentian violet", I came across the article below and started researching Candibiotic ear drops which contains chloramphenicol. I thought I'd see ear infections and chloramphenicol mentioned in your article, but I didn't, so wanted to share the link below for your review. I don't know your background but reading a few reviews, I feel you are well respected. So, after visiting five doctors, two of which were ent, about my son's ear infection that won't clear up, would you consider doing an article on fungal/mold in the ear canal. After viewing YouTube videos of otomycosis and looking at the mini trees in my son's ear, I'm sure it is what's going on with him. One of the ent, even mentioned fungus, but didn't treat. Why is there such an aversion to treating fungus among doctors?

Thanks, 184.0.118.144 (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Bobbie Btm66 at yahoo.com[reply]

http://ispub.com/IJTWM/9/2/7830

Will look. This would be a good source [9]. You are welcome to join us and help writing :-)
Fungal infections are not common in the ear. Have you had tests sent?
Also chloramphenicol is an antibiotic per [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobbie: I'm not a physician, just someone looking at Doc James' talk page, but I should point out something basic: an antibiotic kills certain types of bacteria, but not fungus! Fungus is actually much more closely related to human beings than it is to bacteria, so only certain more specialized drugs are able to kill fungus but not people. Worse ... using antibiotics can actually cause fungal infections as a side effect: [11] [12]. This is because there are bacteria on the skin that do no damage to health, but when their ecology is disturbed, there are more opportunities for other organisms to move in and exploit the resource.
I would strongly recommend that you join Wikipedia, if only so that you can get "pingback" on a comment like this - in case there's something stupid I said that someone wants to call me out on and warn you about, for example. Also... I hate to say it, but our article on otomycosis would greatly benefit if you uploaded some photos of the inside of your son's ear ... also, possibly it will be helpful for someone here to have a look at them. Wnt (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am yet another wandering editor, but wanted to reiterate what Wnt has said: some of the best things you can do are to open up a free Wikipedia account so that you can get notified of important editor dialogue which might interest you and potentially help you, and we could really use a photo or two of what is happening in your son's ear. You don't need to be a professional photographer: if you have nothing more than a smartphone, you can take some very high-quality close-ups of that ear canal and make them available through Wikimedia Commons for use in the article on otomycosis (and for similar articles in Wikipedias in a hundred other languages as well). I am sure there are many people like you in the world, parents of children afflicted with this condition, who are turning to Wikipedia but aren't seeing any images of the infection and so walk away feeling unsure of what's happening. A photo of your son's ear would allow those worried parents to actually SEE otomycosis in situ and to be able to finally tell themselves, "That's it!" or "That's not it!". We need a photo. The world needs a photo. You are in a unique and (hopefully) temporary position to provide one. Please consider the request very seriously. I can personally walk you through the upload process if you need help. Thank you! KDS4444Talk 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Just as an update: I contacted Bobbie via her Yahoo mail account as given above and told her we were trying to reach her. She responded, and said she needed instruction on how to re-edit a talk page section (her son is still ill). I gave her detailed instructions, and encouraged her to return. Hopefully she will soon. But that's where this has got right now, at any rate. KDS4444Talk 20:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

C'mon Doc

[edit]

What's the deal with making edits like this one . . [13]? Let's assume our readers have at least a fourth grade reading level for goodness sake. Motsebboh (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that our readers speak English as a second language and write the leads based on that understanding. Policies state The leads of articles, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors.
I additionally think of this video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I rather suspect that, on average, foreign speakers are just as familiar with the term "annually" as they are with the term "per year". Also try not to confuse foreign speakers and native English speakers alike by confusing "there", "their", and "they're" . . [14]. Best Regards, all the same. Motsebboh (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A nod, and a laugh

[edit]

You'll get a kick, Doc: Waiting for an attendant for an examination/Doppler ultrasound referral for a possible VTE, I was editing the article on Homans sign. You can make sure someone attends to that article, just in case…  ; ] Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will look Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gary craig

[edit]

no-one? never? unfortunately, i care too little about the guy. but please, in the meanwhile, do some research. -- Kku 13:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Kku already self reverted and started a discussion on talk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your record

[edit]

I think this from Denny is significant, but it is not in your record. Peter Damian (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks User:Peter Damian. Feel free to add details I may have missed. Have added that one aswell :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help decide the future of Wikimania

[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James

[edit]
Courage

we all (myself included) follow your courage and leadership everyday, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine, at med articles[15] and anywhere there is a discussion about improving this project,...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ozzie10aaaa thank you for your words of support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Neonatal infection

[edit]

I want to thank you for all your constructive edits to my editing in the past. The article I created, Neonatal infection is scheduled to appear on Main page sometime in the "Did you know..." section in about a week. If you would like to help make it even better, please feel free to polish it up with me. Thanks again and Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
K will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maggot therapy image

[edit]

[16] Did you intend to make the picture bigger? Because that is what I am getting on my screen. Though "upright" usually makes it smaller. If you have a reason, I'll probably defer to the medical professional, of course, just wanted to make sure that was the intent. Oh, and on other matters - yeah. Very, very sorry about that. Thanks for sticking around. --GRuban (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:GRuban yes set it to upright=1.4 which does make it a little bigger. Usually the lead imagine is slightly bigger. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

[edit]

per se

[edit]

See wikt:per se. Yes, I too hoped that our values would be shared there as well. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potential reference for appendicitis site

[edit]

Good afternoon, Doc James,

I am writing (first time) to you as the most recent editor for the site: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Appendicitis

I want to bring to your attention an article I located today which may be appropriate to be included as a reference: A Urine Test for Appendicitis http://www.childrenshospital.org/news-and-events/2009/june-2009/a-urine-test-for-appendicitis

I have been searching online since early this morning to find information after I learned that my niece's two-year old daughter is having an emergency appendectomy today. Thank you for your efforts to help others.

Regards, Era Ford Houston 70.138.185.66 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ref says "a protein detectable in urine might serve as a "biomarker" for appendicitis". I do not think it ever panned out though as I have not seen anything further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COPD

[edit]

Dear James Why do you keep removing the hyperinflation part of the exacerbarions? As current literature shows it is a very important part of exacerbations, although relative unknown. What kind of information would you like, to keep you from removing it again? Since blue journal, ERJ and lancet RM do accept what you keep rejecting.

Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airdocphd (talk • contribs) 05:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Airdocphd I did not remove it but simply moved the content in question. LABAs are not used to treat acute exacerbations of COPD.
Hyperinflation is not a cause but part of the pathophysiology of the disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

message

[edit]

Hi, thanks for the message in my talk page. Are you referring to something in particular or was it a general advice?

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by GioMA (talk • contribs) 10:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:GioMA the sources you were using are primary sources rather than secondary sources. Better to use secondary ones. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever think...

[edit]

...that I don't notice your modifications/ improvements to such things as I add to Wikipedia. Know that I am grateful. That is all. KDS4444Talk 08:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:KDS4444. Hope I help most of the time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do. And I like the consistency. Keep it up. KDS4444Talk 17:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High quality translations

[edit]

There is an effort to translate key medical articles from English to other languages as described here [17]. Progress is here [18]. We would love help from more local Wikipedians with this effort. Let me know if you are interested. James Heilman, MD (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 16:11, 3 Şubat 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for letting me know. I was not active for a long time, so now I can write an answer, i'm sorry for that. I hope, i can active just like i used to be. İf i can, than i like to enjoy this project. we also have an our own WikiProject Medicine -as you know-, unfortunately our project is currently inactive. in this way, our project could be active after a long time. Thanks again, have a good day--Merube 89msj 08:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Merube 89 we would love your help / you to lead this effort in your language :-) A number of groups have found this project to be a useful way to engage with not yet Wikipedians as per this blog. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i hope we can :). regards--Merube 89msj 10:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can provide you more instructions if you email me :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plant-based diet

[edit]

Do you intend to leave the impression that the health effects of a plant-based diet are identical across all species? Pandeist (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We typically discuss humans by default and than have a section called "other animals" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still suggest a prefacing "in humans." Pandeist (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

[edit]

James, while I cannot speak openly because of my WMF staff position, I will say that I still, and as much as ever, have the utmost confidence, respect, faith, admiration, and trust for you. We're lucky to have you back, even as "just" a community member. I can't wait to continue working with you on improving medical content around the world in many underserved languages. Your outreach to the World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, Cochrane Collaboration, and so many others is invaluable to our movement. You are simply the most prolific medical editor in the world (by edits and pageviews), and an enormous asset to our projects. Be well and enjoy your transition back into the community. I hope you find freedom in it, and a renewed sense of drive and passion. Best, Jake Ocaasi t | c 21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Ocaasi. Your words of support mean a great deal to me.
I am honored to work with this community of amazing people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Recently, I said I appreciate your contributions and I meant it. (though I was accused of trolling for doing so via a template for a very minor issue - an uninformative edit summary - and threatened for defending myself.) And again, kudos and thanks for an exemplary response here. Definitely should inspire confidence of others in your commitment to transparency - it shows that when the spotlight was on you regarding transparency, you didn't just talk the talk, you walked the walk. --Elvey(t•c) 22:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User talk:Elvey Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

[edit]

Dementia

[edit]

As part of my job I had reason to google (.co.uk) 'working age dementia' today and noticed the lack of any wikipedia results/sidebars which I found surprising. Likewise for early onset dementia. Turns out both do not exist (even in redirect form) that I can see on wikipedia, any ideas about where to direct them to? I'm not sure a redirect to Alzheimers is entirely appropriate but it is the closest option. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect to Early-onset Alzheimer's disease And thanks User:Only in death for pointing this out :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to do so but noticed you got there first, quick work!. I am putting this down to the UK being less squeamish (or 'PC') about using the term 'dementia' in general discussion rather than the more specific medical terms. Certainly my (deceased) grandfather's doc had no issues with describing his dementia as such rather than using Azheimers. I was just surprised for both terms on google nothing showed up at wikipedia, which is an unusual enough occurance for medical terms I felt it needed mentioning. Cheers again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alzheimer's is simply one type of dementia and is the most common type :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herpes/lysine edit

[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure that I agree with your edit on the Herpes simplex Labialis page, so I opened a discussion here: Talk:Herpes_labialis#Lysine_effectiveness.

Okay thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anorexia vs bulimia

[edit]

Hi Doc James, can I call your attention to: Talk:Anorexia_nervosa#Anorexia_vs_Bulimia? 182.255.99.214 (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

[edit]

James Murray (physician)

[edit]

Hello, I feel it appropriate to shamelessly plug the above new article on a very important, yet unbelievably underrated, physician who has certainly helped me and my tummy woes over the years. I say "appropriate" as I see you are a man of the scrubs, and feel this would be right up your street. Best regards, CassiantoTalk 19:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nice User:Cassianto. We need to find a photo for them :-) Maybe this one [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! I'll upload it later. CassiantoTalk 16:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. CassiantoTalk 23:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad

[edit]

Glad you're still with us. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you two. Yes unfortunately their has been some unpleasantness. We are here to make an excellent encyclopedia. Not willing to get too distracted by politics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Now my command of English is not that great. Did I open saying like: glad you are not dead? ;-) ). DePiep
:-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for staying around. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aye! Thanks for hanging in here. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're still here as well, James. It wouldn't be the same without you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. Your words of support mean a lot to me :-) We really do have a great community of editors here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sniping is getting hard to bear. At least he reverted. As to whether this turns out to be a non-issue, I had to look up TARDIS to see what that was. Seems like an issue to me. I still support you and would vote for you again. Can't say that about everyone that I voted for. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Wbm1058 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Quick question, what does DBE stand for? (as used in your plantar fasciitis edit) - I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:I enjoy sandwiches were do you see DBE? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nevermind, it was a typo, you were writing "should be"(in the edit summaries). I thought it was wikipedia shorthand of which I was unaware. To which source were you referring? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By way of explanation, in the edit summaries of the plantar fasciitis page, you made a number of edits and rearrangements with the summary statement 'we should be using secondary sources'. I assume you were describing an unreferenced statement in the article, but I was not sure to which you were referring. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:I enjoy sandwiches This is a primary source [20]. I am stating we should be using secondary sources like this [21] or [22] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Happy editing :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keratoconus

[edit]

Hello. I notice there is a (semi-)open FAR at Talk:Keratoconus that was never transcluded at WP:FAR. Did you still want to list this article? If not, perhaps you could delete it under criterion G7? Otherwise, it might create archiving/bot problems later. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K will look Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Q

[edit]

Hi Doc l have flu,dry throat,coughing with pain on my chest can I use co-amoxiclav tablets

Should you? It depends on what you have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is perfect. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zika virus warning

[edit]

Hi, Doc - this just in [23] - just thought it would be something your Project Team might want to update and/or make note of at Zika virus. Thanks, Atsme📞📧 19:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Atsme :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion?

[edit]

UCPPS, see talk page. Ratel (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and merged it to pelvic pain. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Doc James,

Thanks for pointing out my errors on the Vitamin wiki. I just did a Google search and this article popped up. It was not malicious. Thanks for the link for reliable sources. So, if I understand it blog posts are typically not an acceptable source.

Rburg-tcs (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey and welcome Rburg-tcs. I'm just a friendly talk-page watcher and want to point you to an excellent guide: WP:MEDRS is very much worth reading; it explains the entire hierarchy of reliable medical sources. I learned a ton from it, and it's a standard 'reference point' for our discussions about medical sources. Best, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propranolol

[edit]

Thank you for the note on my Talk page. Coincidentally, I was actually in the process of drafting these comments on your Talk page when I received that.

  • I find one of your changes from "oral" to "by mouth" a bit awkward – the sentence that says "The by mouth form comes in short acting and long acting formulations."
  • I invite you to check the desirability of my edit on a different aspect. If you think it is not appropriate, feel free to revert it.

—BarrelProof (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:BarrelProof have adjusted the wording slightly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts, please?

[edit]
Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accuracy
 – Wrong venue for this discussion.

Doc, if it's okay with you, I moved this discussion to the proper venue to avoid inundating your TP. If it's not ok, I will be happy to self-revert. Atsme📞📧 17:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly adding back unsourced material to Schistosomiasis

[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Schistosomiasis. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have done this repeatedly, despite knowing better, and then have been canvassing others to back up this intentional disregard of the Wikipedia sourcing pillar. Please stop the disruption. 70.124.133.228 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^^^Made my point. :-xAtsme📞📧


page is now semi-protected (ip disruption)[24]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

[edit]
Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Towards a New Wikimania results

[edit]

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_88&oldid=1146697610"