User talk:Doc James/Archive 46

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Doc James. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

I have reverted the elimination of the image. Reasons you stated were two-fold:

1-Only 18 subjects in source. This might be valid if it were to use it as a source of content, but it is not. We are not using as a primary source in this sense, but as graphic example of something stated in a secondary source (Braak staging) that has received much more proof than this specific plos article. We could in this sense simply use the top half of the image (which a schema of braak staging) e, but IMO the voxel based morphometry analysis has further value as an example since it is a real one.

2-Blurriness: This is a faulty critique probably from a lack of knowleadge on how voxel based morphometry is performed. In VBM subjects are normalized to a template (usually the Montreal Neurological Istitute) which comes from the mean of aroudn a 100 individual brains. The intensity of the signal in each brain voxel is compared between the group of controls and patients. If there are significant voxels they are usually superimposed on a template for visualization. Such normalization template is by itself blurry since it indicates the probability of a structure being a structure. Since some people do not like it per blurriness what they do is to superimpose results to a normal brain that is similar to the mean values of this template, however this brain is as false as the blurry one (or even more, since it is not the true template into which images in the analyisis have been normalized). Botton line: the image is technically perfect as it is.

I am going to copy this discussion into talk page so we can continue discussion there. Regarding all your other edits, they seem great

--Garrondo (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay no strong feeling either way. Article needs a bit of updating before translation so will keep working on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I do not have time to improve this article, specially since I am heavy-reviewing the Multiple sclerosis one, but since I was the main author, you can ask for help if you need something. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Great maybe we could look at bringing this one to publication after MS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Doc, I would like to start a brief dialogue w/ you. What is on my mind ... I do not know the complete backstory of User:Fladrif's block, or his edit history. However, I have read several of his edits, that others have claimed are blatant personal attacks (PAs), and I had to laugh, because well, it was absurd. (No personal attacks that I could find, or, exaggerated characterization on some mild incivilities.) From what I've read (again, not so much), I gather that you understand and/or agree what I'm saying/have observed. (I guess then my Q is, how do you interpret others', Admins', claims of gross incivility and personal attacks by User:Fladrif when, what they cite is, for lack of a more appropriate word, BS?) Thanks for your comment. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. Is it more "mob rule" stuff, and Admin hostility, that I've observed many times on the Wiki? Or Fladrif has bad blood going back to edit histories I have not read, so any scrap of anything now is being used manipulatively against him to satisfy agendas? Or? Thanks for your insight. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, this is very interesting: "Fladrif's past history weighed heavily in my original block decision. In my opinion nothing has changed in Fladrif's editing style since the arbitration declaration. That is the primary reason I chose the "indef" option in my block." Ched :  ? 01:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC). Because I'm not aware of anything in policy, that warrants blocks based on "editing style" and "past history". (That seems to me, as a new-ish WP editor, grist for WP:RfC/U.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not really clear on the back story myself. Fladrif however appears to have pissed off User:Rlevse/User:PumpkinSky during their RfA after returning as a new editor Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PumpkinSky. User:Ched and Rlevse are friends, he being one of the nominators of Pumpkins RfA. There was also other involvement between Ched and Fladrif. I still consider this action by Ched to be misuse of admin tools but was overruled by others who weighted in. When Rlevse came back as Pumpkin they pretended that they were a new editor and proceeded to berate another Wikipedia here. Does not excuse Fladrif though and agree that he should watch his language. Block was out of proportion for the event. These comment from another connected editor [1] and [2] only got him blocked for a week. And this is with a long history of similar issues which continue now. Simply put different editors are held to different standards. Some of Wikipedia unfortunately depends on how many "friends" you have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll get back to you ASAP Doc., and thanks for pinging me. I have a few questions, and I appreciate your courtesy in notifying me. — Ched :  ?  18:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone gets auto notified whenever they are mentioned now. A fairly cool addition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(watching) Ihardlythinkso, do you go around everywhere with this topic? In addition to what I responded to your question on my talk, compare what I saw to the overly simple Fladrif equation "PumpkinSky/BarkingMoon/Vanished User/Rlevse" (in the RfA, link on my user if you need it). - That Dreadstar left because of Fladrif has nothing to do with the PumpkinSky RfA. - Do you get involved with someone automatically if your friend is? - Ched did something unusual and bold, something that "the community" wanted, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Not the only interaction between Ched and Flad. Further interactions here [3], [4], and [5] among others. Agree with you that this was an unusual action. Fladrif's talk page however is still open and if he was interested in defending him self he could. Would /could Fladrif change his behavior? Not sure. WRT "That Dreadstar left because of Fladrif" to clarify he left for exactly 9 days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would request that User:Littleolive oil and User:Keithbob not post on my talk page such as she did here [6]. These comments really add nothing to the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear that there was community support and consensus for Ched's block of Fladrif. I don't know that I agreed with the block, myself, but that doesn't change the fact that it was supported by the community. There's no case to be made that Ched misused his admin tools - he made a block, the block was scrutinized by the community, and it was supported by consensus, which is pretty much the end of the story. Dreadstar's latest melodramatic pseudo-retirement reflects poorly on Dreadstar, but beyond that I'm not sure of its relevance. MastCell ^Talk 00:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are errors, editing an old version of the page when I meant to remove someone's self-promotional links from the articles. I suppose I should thank you for saving me some trouble by fixing those yourself instead of giving me a chance to fix my own mistakes. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I though as much :-) No worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You dealt with him before? I'm not surprised. Several people have been reverting his recent edits, of which there are many. As far as I can see, he has not made a single non-promotional edit. I can't believe his self-created, autobiographical Wikipedia article about himself survived AfD. It really needs to go. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes just noticed he wrote this page about himself Itzhak Brook. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Feeling left out here! Is there anyway I could get into this discussion please? Thanks nevermindthebollocks (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Ossip_Groth#WIKI_GATA actually running. System is more versatile and nothing has to be upped, only, people have to manage to know about it. Thanks for overall consideration and site critique. My sites could probably enhance wikipedia, but wikipedia definitly enhances my sites. My idea of a complementing symbiosis is current, but I will not priorize my limited personal resources into getting support. --Ossip Groth (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry simply to hard for me to figure out. I will stick to pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I was eavesdropping on the message you left for Tim Vickers about the NIH meeting. Just FYI, our Gene Wiki project at the intersection of Wikipedia and human genes is NIH-funded (by NIGMS). Although I'm biased, I think the project's been quite successful for both gathering community contributions and then text mining from the wikipedia pages (e.g., [7]). Anyway, if any of this would be interesting to you or your NIH audience, feel free to get in touch. I have plenty of slides I could share as well... Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes hopefully the NIH will fund a WiR to push these efforts forwards.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why a self published book is not a good source as a reference. My book on the Yom Kipur War documents events no one else ever did. This includes evacuation of wounded soldiers, triage, PTSD. I have published a review medical article on the Six Days and Yom Kippur Wars in Military Medicine. Brook, I. Calm under pressure and fear under fire: personal experience of a medical officer. Mil Med.;166(12 Suppl):61-2. 2001.

Can I use it as reference for related items such as Fear, PTSD, Casualty Evacuation, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dribrook (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The ref in question is not listed as a review article by pubmed [8] but is rather a collection of personal experiences. Here is the definition of review we are going by [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sir, I have been interested in preservation of forest since last 30 years.All my medical knowledge came from books I read of gerat authors from developed country like yours. And my obesevations deducted from that knowledge. I have noted that wise people are there to decide the further course of action on my artcles. I think that I am correct in my article regarding forest. Due to Wikipedia I could came in contact with modern world and wise people like you are the best judge to accept it or not. I never thought that I will get an oportunity to write some thing like that and so I never concentrated on language part of English. My English is British english and I learned my This thing I made clear to my Supervisor in the begining only. Regards.

Welcome. One must link to the source they are referencing. Here are the guidelines for references WP:MEDRS. Wondering if you would be interested in helping with improving medical content in your own language? We are working on efforts here [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Doc James, I echo the sentiment that this was inappropriate. If Littleolive oil insists on posting against your will, a block would be appropriate, but it would never be appropriate for you to issue the block, as your statement suggested you would. I know you haven't actually used your tools, but still, if you were to clarify that you won't block, it would put you clearly in the right on admin status and lessen the drama. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks clarified. These three editors have been at me for some time. I have request that all three not post on my talk page in an effort to reduce further drama.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Read this: Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution Unless you wrote the entire leprosy article then History of leprosy and Epidemiology of leprosy did not have proper attribution. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 07:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You will notice in the very first edit summary of history of leprosy the comment "moved from main Leprosy article to create this as a subarticle" and in the very first edit of the epidemiology page "moved from main page" Yes could have probably been more clear in the later one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear James:

Thanks for your most recent note - its nice to know my Wikifriends are thinking of me. I've not been around because I've been working 6 to 7 days per week at my primary job, and in my spare [sic] time, have been collaborating with numerous individuals and entities on founding a new lung cancer research institute at Missouri Western State University.

This institute has been a dream of mine for nearly 30 years, and as of yesterday, it looks like it will finally become a reality this fall. Well, let me just say that the probability is about 98% that it will be realized, anyway. One never knows until it actually *happens*, particularly given the fact that I had a couple of heart attacks in the past 5 months, right out of the clear blue sky (lol). With MY luck, I will probably keel over dead of a massive MI just as I cut the ribbon at the Grand Opening :-O

Anyway, I plan on involving students, interns, researchers, and proofessors in making contributions to Wikipedia to some extent as an integral part of the activities of the institute. I am a HUGE FAN of Wikipedia, and consider it to be (if not now, soon) perhaps the single most important tool in the education of individuals extant.

With that said, I am also ACUTELY aware of the problems and challenges that the student/Wikipedia relationship can involve, and of course would work closely with you and/or others with expertise long before anyone ever did anything in that regard.

In closing, thanks again for your note (and your friendship). While time constraints will likely prevent me from doing much Wiki-ing for the next few months, I will be around. Maybe sometime in the next 30-60 days we can talk by phone and discuss some stuff. Hoping this message finds you and your family doing well, I remain

Your friend and Wikifan: Cliff ("Uploadvirus")

Hey Cliff Sounds excellent. Let me know what I can do to help. If the students becoming involved are properly motivated, instructed and supervised than it can work. Sorry to hear about your health problems and hope that you are on the mend. Drop me an email and I will send you my number if you do not have it already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I was about to change "prevention" to "precautions" when I found that you had arbitralily deleted several hours of my work. Surely you cannot object to advising breast cancer patients to avoid mutagens. The references were impeccable. Did you read or view them? Wikifrieden (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Youtube videos are not impeccable references. The other was not listed as a review by pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear about the reversion, WP:Also just says SA has to be relevant, nothing about recommendation, where does this originate from? Ranze (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Doc, according to File:Studying1.jpg it looks like you uploaded it and tagged it with an OK license but then I saw that you made this at Talk:ADHD saying the license may not be OK. I had OK'd the image as part of my GA review but now I'm not sure, what's the story? Was the image tagged with a license inappropriately? If so we need to fix. Zad68 15:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes good point. I am not sure if it was originally CC BY SA and then recently changed to CC BY NC. Will email the person in question Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Great thanks... just looking around, French WP and Dutch WP use the US-public domain image from the CDC, which is more informative than the File:Studying1.jpg image but I don't like how it seems to be making fun of the kid with ADHD. Italian WP uses the File:Studying1.jpg image, Spanish WP uses a brain scan image. Many of the others have no image at all. Zad68 16:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes as I look into things further. It appears that many images from .gov sites are not public domain but clip art they have just got the license for single use for. I oppose the use of the brain scan as the cause is unknown and thus the image is a little too POV. No one is diagnosed with a brain scan. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Request your admin/experienced opinion here Talk:Vitamin_U#OR.3F, thanks Lesion (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Commented and proposed merge. The exact term IMO is less important than the mergers themselves. Will do it if there is support in a couple of days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to use text books, because an old professor probably wrote them. Since I am into this subject so deeply, I might even go to my University bookstore and spring for whatever iz being recommended for biochemistry. Thanks.
Learning the difference between a wall-sit and a couch-sit iz the first step to a good workout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.123.237 (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Would need to be major current textbooks sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated Bupropion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi James,

I am about to chime in, but have yet to find any articles that are being worked on. Pointers appreciated. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Daniel. We have not started editing yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles are here User:PMHed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the message which you left on the talk-page of my userpage. I must say, I did wonder whether some one might complain, after I had put in the information, that I had not quoted any sources! The source for which I heard the information was the programme on BBC Radio Four called All in the Mind. If some one knows other references for this information, I am happy for him or her to add it to the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The barnstar surprise pleased me inordinately - thanks, James! :) Hildabast (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	James, thanks so much for coming to the NLM and giving your presentation. You were inspirational, as always. Sorry to be so un-creative, but here's the same barnstar you gave me, back-atcha! Klortho (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate it :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

		WikiProject Medicine / United States National Library of Medicine Editathon - May 2013
		English: Thank you for your participation in the National Library of Medicine Editathon, May 28 and 30, 2013! We are so glad to have met you, and look forward to working with you at many more fun editathon events! Duckduckgo (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

per our discussion, here is a list of peer reviewed articles about wikipedia: Wikipedia:Academic studies of Wikipedia;

number 2 "Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812" is online. Duckduckgo (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way it was great working with you in DC. We will need to do it again soon :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

great meeting you. i think a way forward with vital articles (high importance) is to do periodic editathons, have the reference search, shelf pull done, and then team write on the day. this will produce better more lasting content than any "assignment". this could be done at any good medical library, if enough wikipedians and experts can be gathered, (although our library is the best) ;-) Duckduckgo (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, our library rocks! ;) It was great meeting you! I like the list: is there one just for medicine?Hildabast (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that I should perhaps start the other way around, because I actually think the debriefing page doesn't entirely make sense the way it is. It doesn't get a huge number of visitors either. I think it makes sense for it to be very briefly about the various types of debriefing (including missing ones, like debriefing after critical events in hospitals and so on). There's a few things wrong about CISM etc. Is it possible that I leave it for now, get started on debriefing in the "condition" page/s, and then we re-direct people more interested in those therapeutic uses of the term to the relevant pages on the "condition" page/s?Hildabast (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? One can of course provide links in both directions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The debriefing page has 5 sections, 4 of which are about different uses of the term (and it's not a complete list and doesn't say much). Then there is a 5th section called "effectiveness", which is really a subsection of the section before it. The section is extremely low quality and doesn't have a single citation. Especially since the page doesn't get many visitors, rather than spend time working on it, I'd be inclined to leave it and come back after effectiveness of debriefing has been fixed up at PTSD etc, just pointing people to the proper discussion there. Even if it ends up needing a nested separate section on debriefing as an early intervention/prevention, I don't that would belong within a page that talks about debriefing for completely different purposes, such as education. Hildabast (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I typically stick with the main disease articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I gave the Debriefing#Crisis_intervention a {{See also}} template. Klortho (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Hildabast (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a secondary source and someone's put a primary one back in - this makes no sense to me. It is one of the primary sources in the secondary source, but I don't think that it makes sense to include a primary source in that way. Sometimes I can see you'd have a sentence about the primary source, when it's a trial in a systematic review for example that needs to be pointed out. But ordinarily, it makes no sense and subverts the point of not considering a study in isolation. Be different if it wasn't covered by the secondary source, but in this case it is. What's the process for this? Do I undo it and put my comment on the talk page? Or is this something you handle?Hildabast (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ignore previous - I misunderstood the update message: I thought it meant the reference had been added, but when I looked at the text, it's not been added. Looks like there's a bot that is just hanging onto the reference I deleted. So I don't think anything needs to be done. Non-issue!Hildabast (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes so what happened is that one ref was used a few times. You removed one instance of the ref but not the other occurrences. The bot was just making sure the other ones keep working. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I don't think we ever interacted, but I've often seen you involved with medical sourcing issues. I wonder if you might have a glance at something for me?

The article Ideasthesia seems to have been created by the "proponent" or creator of the term, if I'm reading it correctly, and I'm not sure how good the sourcing is, or how established the concept is. It would not be a concern to me, except for the fact that the author has now twice added the term and a link to Nikola Tesla#Eidetic memory. I'm a bit out of my comfort zone, having reverted it as a good faith addition once - so I wondered if you might be able to offer a "second opinion"? Thanks if you can, and no worries if you can't. Begoon ^talk 07:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Just adding that User:Dankonikolic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has started a reasonable discussion about this at my talk page since my post above, which I have moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla#Synesthesia/Ideasthesia, if you did have anything to add. thanks. Begoon ^talk 12:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is not much literature on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a mergeto synesthesia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Meh, I'm not the deletionist type, and he seems genuine enough. The discussion seems under control, and I don't really think the article does any harm per se. Dropping links to it into major biographical articles is not good without a more solid basis, but newbies are newbies... Sorry to poke you, in the end, I did so because I thought it might get contentious, but it doesn't really seem to be at the moment. Thanks for the response, and apologies for any time you feel was wasted. Begoon ^talk 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 16:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back. Wondering if you would be interested in helping with this project here [11] We could use the help :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Jason Quinn (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I replied here d:Wikidata_talk:Medicine_task_force. Did you see that? (Watching your talk page) --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied another time. Also wanted to send you these links that might interest you: --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/05/06/the-wikidata-tool-ecosystem/
• http://toolserver.org/~magnus/ts2/wdstats/?q={%22r%22:[{%22p%22:106,%22i%22:39631}],%22p%22:%22p21%22}

thanks for these, I have a bad habit of forgetting to put that slash in there, will be more careful! Zad68 13:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Doc James, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Epidemiology of diabetes mellitus, appears to be directly copied from http://www.nutritionalsupplementscorp.com/healthwise/diabetes/page_diabetesepidemiology.html. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Epidemiology of diabetes mellitus if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes they of course copied it from Wikipedia. You will notice they even left the ref tags. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheeky, an undeclared fork. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Who claim the copyright over all the content of its web...--Garrondo (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have run across an issue in the Spanish Wikipedia, this is one of the reasons why I usually avoid working in the clusterfuck that is the Spanish Wikipedia; an user's ego got in the way of the translation of the article on gout (es:gota (enfermedad)), he just reverted the whole thing to his old version. When I adapted the translation I took special notice of using any relevant information that was missing from the English version and I found that the history, popular culture, and the occurrence in other animals sections had more information and sources than the English version and I used that information in forming the new article, however the medical content was technically the same albeit presented differently. In any case, he just ignored any and all contributions and changed it back, so I'm wondering if anyone else has encountered similar issues elsewhere and if so what do you think would be the best way to handle this, I don't have any connections with any Spanish Wikipedia editors to hope for an arbitrary solution and I feel we are at a disadvantage as it is since there will be a sentiment of "language protection" in general. That user (es:usuario:Posible2006) actually checked my contributions and saw we had also worked on the article on gastroenteritis, but instead of reverting all the information as he did for his article on gout, he only made some copy-editing which was actually useful, which shows he is not simply against translations, he just has a personal stake on gout. He didn't do anything to the strep throat article, that one being a new article altogether.

I'm also working on the Hep C article but I found that the translation on TWB had drastically changed the article, first removing most of the wiki mark-up (so I have to go in an look for all that has to be linked and link it), and then by furthering translating the content in a way that does not work for wikipedia making it's mostly an "interpretation", so instead of saying "causes thrombocytopenia" which is an actual term and can be linked to the existing article it says "causes a decrease in the number of platelets" which is more ambiguous. So I am translating the article myself, then maybe someone from TWB can then check it further, I was actually surprised by this because the other articles were properly translated. mijotoba (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes discussion and bringing people on board will need to occur. I think an active discussion on the talk page is required. I have weigh in about the issues regarding the medical content (much is missing, some is misleading / potentially harmful). This has been an issue in other major languages were some wish content built from scratch in that language rather than translated due to reasons of national pride. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I left a message at BetaCG's page in Spanish Wikipedia (es:Usuario_Discusión:BetoCG#Gota_.28enfermidad. He is an admin over there and is fair.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Thelma Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about sunscreen? Thanks for the info, as I very rarely contribute to medical topics and didn't know about WP:MEDRS. In any case I did try to take a look at the primary source (in The Annals of Internal Medicine) but it was hidden behind a paywall. But per WP:PAYWALL I'll switch to that source. I wouldn't expect there to be a medical secondary source at this point since the primary source was just published two days ago. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have finished working in the text of the Multiple sclerosis article. I have greatly expanded and updated the research directions section and treatment sections. Due to English not being my language most probably some copy editing would benefit the article, but that may not be really relevant for translation.

On the other hand I have been trying to include some additional images. One good candidate is File:Monthly multiple sclerosis anim.gif. I would modify it to include either no text or English text. However it might have some copyright problems since it is a derivative work from a deleted image. The original image seems to have been deleted because the patient was the one uploading it, while it was created by a US governmet institution who claims copyright over its works. What is your opinion about it taking into account that the article is probably going to be also published as a journal article? Do you think the image is copyrightable? Brain MRI images are probably even less creative than X-rays since there is only a single basic position for the head and the sequence for obtention is standardized.

--Garrondo (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that they are not copyrightable. The patient owns the image just as much as anyone else. I am happy to see it used here on Wikipedia. Let me check with Gunther about publication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Just for curiosity, what languages are you planning to translate the article? Previous versions have already been translated to several languages.--Garrondo (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The 50 languages here [12] More being added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the history of the article using this. The article has been edited 4600 times. Out of 1800 editors (or 1000 ip addresses only 5 editors have added more than 1% of the editions. In order by number of edits: me-14%-, User:Jfdwolff-4%-, you-2.6%-, User:InvictaHOG-2.2%%, User:Juansempere-1.9%. These 5 editors sum aproximately 25% of the edits of the article. 25 more made more than 10 edits, of which there are two bots, 4 ip editors and several people that I would say that their edits were quite controversial and made more harm than good.

I would say that both the mark of the 1% of the edits and the sum of contributions being 25% could be reasonable ways of judging "significant contributors" in this and probably other articles. Moreover, since article edits tend to follow a Zipf law For example the sum of the contributions of the next 25 editors (those with more than 10 edits) is only 14%), this would yield a number of "significant editors" in line with number of authors of most scientific articles.

Both Juansempere and Jfdwollf are still active while InvictaHOG has not edited for around 3 years.

I am not sure on the calendar regarding sending articles to JMIR, if it is too soon or if even the initiative is now for sure or still under development. Any comments will be welcomed on the best approach would be appreciated. --Garrondo (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that my edits to the article are anything more than minor changes, so I don't feel that I should be credited as an author. JFW | T@lk 18:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

While half of them were minor, the other were not... and even if they were all minor it seems that you monitored, cleaned, reverted and copyedited more than anybody else (excluding me I suppose) for almost 9 years, so you should certainly be credited for the article we have today.--Garrondo (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes listing those 5 as authors sounds good with other being listed as contributors.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Most changes are great (although I have not yet seen the last ones), and exemplify how a second opinion and copy edit of any article has a great value. --Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)