User talk:Jcally66

Michael Welner Page

Greetings Jcally66. First of all welcome to the wiki editing community. As one of the editors, I want to be sure you have access to the resources you need to navigate the wiki waters as well as uphold wiki etiquette WP:ETIQ.

You have made an edit to Michael Welner page, which has had some issues with bad faith editing. That said, the editing community has established using WP:TALKPAGE or the discussion page before making edits so that the community agrees. Because your first post violates WP:NPOV about peer review and WP:ORIGINAL in that the actual article says nothing about peer review being controversial, nor that is does not adhere to ethical standards, or that the judge equates it to "co-authorship". It has been removed. That said, your contributions are welcome and we ask that you first use the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner, particularly as you are a new editor, to be sure we are all editing in good faith.Stewaj7 (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

Stewaj7, I’m not sure where your confusion comes from here, it's the entire basis of the ruling. The judge did not rule to throw out the prosecutions report because the defense side was deprived of “peer review”. He made his ruling because the prosecution’s “peer reviewers” were not acting as peer reviewers (is there a way to attach the entire ruling?). Instead, Judge Conner ruled that they were substantive contributors to the original report on the defendant (thereby violating court orders). I even showed you the part of the ruling with Panel doctor Trestman’s testimony, “Dr. Trestman testified that the peer-review process employed by The Forensic Panel is akin to the process used to prepare a joint paper co-authored by more than one individual. (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g, 13, March 23, 2012.)” It doesn’t seem like it can be any clearer than that. (Do the rules here really exclude all court rulings? Even Supreme Court rulings?)

No confusion here, just making reference to what was stated in the article you cited: "In an order, Cooper said he was led to believe Morgan would draft a report free of input and influence from anyone else and that would be later reviewed by Marcopulos and Trestman. Instead, Cooper found that Morgan consulted with Marcupulos and Trestman before interviewing Richardson and then, after conferring with Trestman, changed his initial diagnosis that Richardson suffered from schizophrenia to an opinion that he suffered from antisocial personality disorder. This meant there was no longer a level playing field — the government now had three mental health experts and the defense had one, Cooper found. The judge said that, while “grave,” his only remedy was to exclude The Forensic Panel experts from testifying."Stewaj7 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally, your reference to clinical peer review actually supports my point, not yours. It describes an example of blind, post-hoc evaluations of other clinicians’ diagnoses and recommendations. Again, find an example of clinical peer review where the reviewers are involved in the initial diagnosis and I’ll concede.

There is an article that I found, but I need to get the full text. It has examples of post hoc and a priori peer review <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15228932.2011.588526#preview.</ref>. If you can find the full text I think this will be helpful in outlining the variants of peer review. I was simply trying to demonstrate that there are so many Quality assurance/peer review examples. The subject of this BLP actually has done some research on this topic. I hope this is helpful. If you can find the full text, please let me know. That may be worth citing so that the reader gets a sense of forensic peer review as proposed by Welner.Stewaj7 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you!Stewaj7 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, if you would please respond to the dispute resolution, we can move forward. The link is above.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Jcally66, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Jcally66! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Judge David Thomas Lewis.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Judge David Thomas Lewis.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. January (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're refering to the creator of the picture file, rather than the photographer, then I created it myself by scanning the original photo. Jcally66 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)