User talk:Doc James

 Translation
Main page Those Involved
(sign up) Newsletter 

Please click here to leave me a new message. secondary source I see that many times you and zad are refering to the need of sources to be secondary. After almost each such time i quote wp:medrs that says primary sources are no less important and even more preferable in supporting direct points than secondary. After every such mentions i get no further replies. However this cycle starts all over again with the next primary source i provide. Could we please have a consensus regarding primary sources according to wp:medrs? Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Sure you are required to use secondary sources for most details pertaining to health care. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Have you reviewed wp:useprimary wikipedia policy? "Secondary" is not another way to spell "good" Shortcut: WP:NOTGOODSOURCE Further information: Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent "Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable". Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published. "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad" Shortcut: WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. Ryanspir (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I second this request for feedback as all of my edits have been rejected for the exact same reason.Sthubbar (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC) (Tweaked the wikilinks above - please learn how to do this.) That essay is interesting, but it is just that, an essay. The pertinent guidance to follow for sourcing medical assertions is wp:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Do you mean that: 1) WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:NOTGOODSOURCE should not be used? 2) Do you mean that they are not Wiki policies? What do you mean by simply calling them "essays" please? Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Have a look at WP:Wikipedia essays and WP:The value of essays. In short, no, essays are not policies or even guidelines. They are just someone's opinion. That doesn't mean they aren't useful or shouldn't be considered, but they are advice rather than rules. CarrieVS (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC) I'm lost here, how can I follow it's advice if it's somehow contradicts the wp:medrs policy? And what is the forum that discusses changes to wp:medrs please? Ryanspir (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Basically, you can't. The advice in essays is one or more editors' interpretation of policies or ideas about best practice. Following it is not a requirement, and it hasn't gained community consensus, so other people may disagree. It also may not be applicable to every situation: for instance, the essay you cited is not specific to medical information, which is held to particular standards. Policy - in this case MEDRS - comes first. The first place to discuss possible changes to any page - including policies - is the relevant talk page. CarrieVS (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC) WP:MEDRS is a guideline where "occasional exceptions may apply", not a policy. WP:IGNORE is a policy. Even MEDRS allows the cautious use of primary sources in certain situations (see WP:MEDREV). Clearly high quality secondary sources if available are strongly preferred. At the same time it is important to keep in mind that secondary sources are not automatically better than primary sources. Boghog (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Boghog, in my experience, it is almost never helpful to be nerdy wrt the distinction of guideline/policy or getting those few exceptions where primary research papers are useful/allowed just right. It is nearly always a warning sign when folk start citing WP:IGNORE or WP:NOTCENSORED. More helpful is to look at the context. What is the issue this editor is having? Whenever someone wants to deflate WP:MEDRS for being just a guideline, then perhaps they want to look at WP:WEIGHT or WP:PSTS. A primary research paper cannot establish its own WEIGHT and neither can the judgement of editors. Secondary sources are absolutely the bedrock of our sourcing both in terms of what, if and how much we say. That's policy. Colin°Talk 10:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Colin, I resemble that remark :-) I wish to point out however that I was mainly responding to CarrieVS. I agree secondary sources are strongly preferred when it comes to medical articles, but what I object to is extreme adherence to guidelines. Furthermore WP:PSTS also allows careful use of primary sources. One weakens the argument against primary sources by over stating it. Boghog (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC) For major topics there are lots of secondary sources so generally primary sources are not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC) See Dreyfus model of skill acquisition. The problem with the policy wonks (myself included) is that we often want to show off our Expert grasp of policy and appreciation of the finer details. The expert pointing out the few exceptions to the rule is invariably making things worse. The Novice just sees conflicting advice that doesn't help them solve the problem they have: they are almost certainly using the wrong kind of sources. -- Colin°Talk 13:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Parkinson's disease question What causes you to shake if you have the Parkinson's disease? Ashbeckjonathan (talk) HIV/AIDS again Hi Doc, I'm going to improve the Persian article and submit the translations. I saw the English article which is GA now, I think it could be FA easily since it's so complete and high-quality. Why don't you nominate it for FA? ●Mehran Debate● 06:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Do not do FAs. I am more of a content person rather than grammar and style person. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC) You mean the content has no problem and the only reason is the grammatical issues? I think it would be solved if an experienced user reviews it and correct the mistakes. What do you think? ●Mehran Debate● 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Yes it is definitely one of the better articles I have worked on. While I would be willing to help with the FA process I am not willing to lead it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Great, so I'll look for someone who can lead it. :) ●Mehran Debate● 03:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 11 March 2013 From the editor: Signpost–Wikizine merger News and notes: Finance committee updates Featured content: Batman, three birds and a Mercedes Arbitration report: Doncram case closes; arbitrator resigns WikiProject report: Setting a precedent Technology report: Article Feedback reversal Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Invitation to join Wikiproject Conflict Resolution Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Most conflict revolves around content issues. I really only deal with the subject matter I am familiar with, medicine and if people post on WT:MED I will often weight in or at least take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Hey I am going to edit a page in wikipedia that you edited some time ago. So I wanted if you could get some sources for it to add more stuff please and give me some advices for the page and the sections that it needs to be added. thankz --Zak Abdi (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Not sure how you hope I can help. Can find stuff through google. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Help please Hi Doc, the article Placental expulsion is a mess and I'd like to be able to read the Cochrane report for myself to try and improve the article. Could you paste it on my talk page or somewhere? I also found some good info from the WHO and the Guttmacher Inst. that I'd like to add. I am learning that many women are dying from poor birthing care--not to suggest that I was not already aware--I am just finding one more problem. [1] Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Email me. Am away for a bit but back in a week. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC) X-Rays in Commons? Hi Doc, RexxS sent me. I'm trying to figure out "teh rulz" on getting veterinary radiographs onto Commons. Specifically, I'd like to use one of the ones I've linked below in Tennessee Walking Horse, which all have a label on them saying "USDA" which I think indicates they are probably PD-US-Gov: http://fuglyblog.com/2012/07/12/guest-post-twh-stacks-a-shoers-perspective/image004/ http://www.chattanoogan.com/2012/7/28/231181/Roy-Exum-Horse-Abuse-Just-Dial-911.aspx and/or http://atwork.avma.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/xray-USDA.gif http://atwork.avma.org/2011/11/09/progress-on-soring-and-kudos-to-usda/ (tagged "Courtesy of USDA") Any help appreciated, and thanks. Montanabw(talk) 22:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Yes I think these would be fine as they are US governmental works and thus in the public domain. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Common cold Is this websites ([2], [3], [4]) reliable enough to use in Common cold? They have some useful information. ●Mehran Debate● 03:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC) The NHS yes. The other two I would say no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Fibromyalgia Hi Doc. Check the fibromyalgia talk page when you have a chance please. :) I see you are on holidays, no rush at all, just pointing out as not sure if you still have it watch listed.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Live mirror testing I added the span tags so that I could verify a site (scoopweb.com) was a live mirror for Wikipedia content. See here. Thegreatgrabber (talk)contribs 03:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC) For what purpose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC) There is no need for it anymore, but as I said it was my intent to list the site at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks, and I used the span tags to ensure that it was indeed a live mirror. Thegreatgrabber (talk)contribs 03:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Reply Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Scray's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. FYI This is concerning your non-constructive editing of Circumcision. On the off-chance that you are not aware of it, I would like to let you know of WP:Edit warring and in particular WP:3RR, the three-revert rule. In short: Edit warring (trying to enforce edits non-constructively in cases other than very obvious vandalism) is never acceptable and can lead to a block, but as an additional bright line, even constructive editing usually has that result if you make four or more reverts in a 24-hour period. For evaluating this bright line, any contiguous sequence of your edits that substantially includes one or more reverts apparent in the overall result counts as a single revert, regardless of whether it also involves other changes or not. Hans Adler 07:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Not sure what you mean by "any contiguous sequence of your edits that substantially includes one or more reverts apparent in the overall result counts as a single revert, regardless of whether it also involves other changes or not" But anyway it is you that need to get support / consensus for your changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC) I just realised that you are an admin (I have a script for making them visible, but it doesn't work with fancy signatures), so obviously you already knew about 3RR. Sorry for the mistake. What I meant is that doing several individual reverts in a row with no intervening other edits does not increase your revert count, self-reverted reverts don't count, and hiding a revert by combining it with some other edit is useless. For obvious improvements to an article, no prior consensus is required. WP:BRD is not generally deprecated on contentious articles and is in fact often necessary to prevent getting stuck in fruitlessly vague discussions. Hans Adler 07:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC) I recommend that you try a RfC if you wish wider community input. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC) An RfC on what? Hans Adler 07:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC) On the AAP being "biased" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC) BP Hi Doc, it seems BP has been rewriting the article about itself since last July, with the help of a small number of editors who agreed to insert the company's drafts. See here for a description of what happened. Smallbones has started a discussion about it at WT:COI to try to introduce a rule change to stop this kind of thing. I'm trying to round up some sensible editors to take part in the discussion. If you're willing, see Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#BP and large company editing in general. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC) antibioic resistance Good evening docjames, I am absolutely shocked about your unfriendly message:"Have removed your changes to the article on antibiotic resistance. Not sure what was with the strange numbering of sections. Also introduced a number of other errors. We typically keep section headings sort and they do not contain links per.." I have no problems if you remove the numbering or remove wiki errors". I would appreciate help, but not an indiscriminate 1-click 12 h work deletion. I have no problems to factually discuss anything, if you have questions. it appears you did not look at what I added or edited. the article was a mess, in many ways. nobody had worked on it for some time, even though this is a very important topic (to the wikiproject medicine apparently too). So, I will restore my version which was hard work. deleting all my work with one click is neither fair. I request your help in avoiding these formal errors, and would appreciate piece by piece negotiation for the issues. show that you are a content expert. w. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 22:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Many of the changes were not an improvement and it introduced many errors. Feel free to keep working on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Your above reply is not constructive a) criticizing my changes of the antibiotic resistance article (>4500 edits) globally as "many were not an improvement" ( (evidence? most of what doesnt look good I merely shuffled, because as a novice I didnt dare to delete( like you) nor b) my reply to you in any way. b) You are quite obviously not a content expert. Therefore, you should either keep out off this topic or work WITH the person that is. Lastly, by saying Feeling free to work on it you treat me like a child. what teh guarantee that you dont do the same next time, when you as the big editor come in and with one click can destroy work that you have not shown to have assessed. why would I want to feel free to work on it? You havent paid me any respect in your lack of address or short and arrogant reply. If you had educational skills on your behalf. I think the show may be too big for you. You havent helped the issue of antibiotic resistance , leave alone me by trying to improve it ONE bit. The article remains a mess.Wuerzele (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC) References Doc James, thanks for the pointer about references. The additions I made to the Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis pages was copied directly from the Collagen article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar (talk • contribs) 07:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) And both were primary rather than secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC) revert at HIV Why did you make this revert. See "Reasons not to change (bypass) redirects" under WP:NOTBROKEN, in particular the first three. At best all you accomplished was to introduce "unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Piped links are fine and should be left as the original author wrote them per [5]. If consensus is developed that they are not than we can make these changes. All WP:NOTBROKEN says is do not go around adding piped links. It does not state that people should be going around and removing piped links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC) No, it's "unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form", puss "Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links." Also "Redirects can indicate possible future articles (see {{Redirect with possibilities}})." and while this is unlickly in the case of sexually transmitted infection (for example), it is quite possible in the case of Rough sex As I stated if you can show me consensus than sure. I however would like to make sure there is consensus before there is wide spread removing of piped links. If the community is indeed against it than maybe a bot could take care of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I have been doing this kind of thing for a long time, and you are the first person who has ever objected. WP:NOTBROKEN clearly lists reasons why pointless piped links are harmful, and says nothing to the effect of "Piped links are fine and should be left as the original author wrote them". So the "article being more difficult to read in page source form", preventing the effective use of the "what links here" tool, and bypassing redirects that can indicate possible future articles, and "eradicate[ing] useful information which can be used to help decide on the "best" article title" is fine? And we should not use a bot as you propose because "there are a limited number of cases where [bypassing redirects] is beneficial". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I often use piped links to simplify the term in question without losing the technical meaning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) How so? If it's not a pointless piped link then that's a little different. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Are you talking about using the tooltip to give the reader extra information, or something like that? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Diet and Lifestyle in prostate cancer Your text is not representative of what your reference says. Please read your reference material, and lets discuss. Also, what are your objections to the secondary sources? The reference link supporting "poor evidence" for ejaculation frequency influencing pc does not work, and your text does not jibe with the other four references (one secondary). Please provide a usable link to a readable reference to reinstate that sentence.32cllou (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC) This is a primary source [6] As is this [7] This ref works just fine were I am [8]. Please take your concerns to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Can we avoid using the word "Alternative Medicine"? Doc James, I notice on the Osteoarthritis page there is management called Osteoarthritis#Alternative_medicine. I have checked the page Alternative medicine and I completely agree with "There is no coherent, consistent and widely accepted definition of alternative medicine." Is Wikipedia a collection of American knowledge, Western knowledge, or human knowledge? I hope the last one. As a source of human knowledge the word "alternative" will change depending on the culture. In the US, Chinese Traditional Medicine is "alternative" and in China it is mainstream. I propose avoiding the term completely like in the Rheumatoid arthritis where the term "other therapies" is used. Ideally, I would like to propose 3 categories 1) Proven treatments 2) Possible treatments 3) Unproven treatments. Category 1 would be for treatments with secondary sources supported by random controlled trials. Category 2 is for treatments that have 1 or more random controlled trials and lack a secondary source. Category 3 is for any other suggested treatments that lack any random controlled trials. What do you think? I am happy with the term alternative medicine. Feel free to post at WT:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC) That sounds like you support the idea that Wikipedia is a source of Western knowledge since Chinese Traditional Medicine is decidedly not alternative for at least 1.3 billion people. From what I know much of it probably fits in the category #3 I propose, and that is something completely different than calling it "alternative". Thanks for sharing your opinion.192.204.198.41 (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is a source of the science of medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Doc James, I completely agree with you about the idea of science of medicine. My point is that the opposite of "Alternative" is often considered "Main Stream". For example, men wearing skirts is considered "Alternative" in the US. In Scotland it is "Main Stream". "Alternative" is a poor choice of words as it is strictly American/Western centric. The work "Non proven" is a scientific term. "Alternative" is a non-scientific term, even defined as I mentioned above by Wikipedia as hard to define. Does that make more sense that I agree with you about being scientific and it is precisely because "Alternative" is a non-scientific term and saying "unproven" is more scientific?Sthubbar (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC) We discuss the science of alternative medicine as well. And there is often a fair bit of it. Some alt med has supportive evidence, some has none supportive evidence and some has no evidence at all. I do not see the break down you mention as an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Doc James, I'm objecting to the word "Alternative". Do you remember when crayons used to have a color called "Flesh"? That's right when I was young my Crayola crayons had a pinkish color written "Flesh" on the side. Can you understand why some people might take offense to this? Same thing with "Alternative". Your "alternative" is not so for billions of people. Cold and hot are also non-scientific words. Are you starting to get the point?111.199.96.60 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC) We reflect common English usage. Other languages are free to do things differently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Doc James, you missed the point. Flesh is also common English usage. More accurately you are saying common Western usage, which would be the same as saying common Caucasian usage for Flesh. Both of these terms are perfectly acceptable to you as part of both groups. Can you not see how both of these terms are unscientific? I think you take pride in being scientific. Wikipedia itself claims that alternative is hard to define. It is a culturally racist and offensive term. Would you call Socialism an "alternative political theory"? Would you call Hebrew an "alternative language"? Would you call well developed mammary glands as "alternative development"? Assuming the majority of a country accepts capitalism, speaks English and is male, then all of these could rightfully be called alternative. It says nothing scientific about the statements. Please try and put your self in the place of the minority that were playing with flesh colored crayons. Why do you want to cling to a non-scientific offensive Western term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar (talk • contribs) 23:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC) "Alt med" is not an insult and many within the field refer to themselves as such. Feel free to ask for wider input. There was support for its usage on Wikipedia here Talk:Alternative medicine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC) The initial feedback for the use of "Alternative medicine" is "It's an alternative to evidence based medicine" which I can totally agree with. Therefore, none of the information I am adding, except for acupuncture fit this definition as I am providing secondary, reliable, evidence based sources. Therefore I plan to remove all of those lines from rheumatoid arthritis out of the "Alternative medicine" header and put something like "Other treatments". Do you agree?Sthubbar (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC) No I do not agree. Feel free to ask at WT:MED if you want another opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Did you realize that ... About 40% of Wikipedia's article on BP (British Petroleum) was written by a BP employee, and the the source of this text is not disclosed to our readers? BP was also the source of the horrific Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It recently pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and to lying to its own investors, but those facts are not included in the article, nor is there anything in the article about BP misleading our readers. If you'd like to know why independent editors are leaving Wikipedia, please read User talk:Slim Virgin#Re: BP <Retired> Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Yes this is a very serious issue. I am not happy to hand over Wikipedia to private interests. Wikipedia works because the majority of volunteers are "good" or "ethical". If we allow paid interests I do not believe this will remain the case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 18 March 2013 News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee WikiProject report: Making music Interview: Meeting in the middle: Wikipedia and libraries Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm Arbitration report: Richard case closes Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule" Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Fear of herbal remedies - rheumatoid Arthritis Doc James, what's with the fear of mentioning herbal or other "natural" remedies for rheumatoid arthritis? I clearly indicated that the evidence is preliminary. These are placebo, controlled double-blind studies not just someone's idea. On the same page under "Other therapies" is says " weight loss, orthoses, occupational therapy, podiatry, physiotherapy, immunoadsorption therapy, joint injections, and special tools to improve hand movements (e.g., special tin-openers)" and not a single one of those is referenced. By your standard that whole section should be removed because not only are there no secondary sources for that quote, there are no primary sources. Again, why the fear of curcumin and collagen when it is clear that this is preliminary, and still based on at least on published double-blind, placebo controlled study? Sthubbar (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC) How about we try a different way. Do you have access to the full text of this secondary source?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22414101. It is a recent review.Sthubbar (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC) A reply Kindy reply on the section secondary sources on this talk page. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Courtesy note Hi James, I've mentioned Jclemens' posts to you regarding Will BeBack, here, in case you want to comment. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Removal of RS content James you have removed RS sourced content from an article on Transcendental Meditation with out discussion or agreement. As well, could you point to the RfC that you say allows you to make this kind of content removal. While you certainly have the right to contest content in these articles, unilateral reversal/deletion with out discussion is of concern.(olive (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)) I was restoring the content as per the last RfC as mentioned on the talk page. See here [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC) There was no RfC consensus and you've unilaterally removed a year's worth of editor work and agreement in which you could have participated at any time. I have nothing more to say about this action at this point in time. Thank you for your response.(olive (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)) It took a years worth of editor work to write two short paragraphs of this poor quality? I despair. Anyway, the onus is on you to get consensus for the changes, not the other way around, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Seasonal Suicide Mr. James, I simply borrowed the information from the "Seasonal Suicide" section in the Epidemiology of suicide sub-article. In advance of my edit, on the Suicide talk page I wrote "I think its important to borrow certain elements of the "Seasonal Suicide" section in the Epidemiology of suicide sub-article to the main Suicide article." - This shows where I got the information and my honest intentions. My logical assumption was that the Epidemiology of suicide article in Wikipedia (which in fact is listed as a link in the main Suicide article) was properly vetted by editors, and so there would be no issue with merely mirroring this important information. My clear mistake was that I did not also borrow the reference from that article, which I list below: This reference meets both of your requirements (see your comment here: Can you provide refs that this is 1) a common misconception 2) it is false signed Doc James.) Mr. James, please tell me if this is appropriate and I will proceed with adding the below to the main Suicide article: Heading: Seasonal suicide The idea that suicide is more common during the winter holidays (including Christmas in the northern hemisphere) is actually a myth, generally reinforced by media coverage associating suicide with the holiday season. The National Center for Health Statistics found that suicides drop during the winter months, and peak during spring and early summer. Thank YouEvangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC) NPR is not really a reliable source. Is there a review article or major textbook that comments on this? Is it just an American thing or is this global? Often the content on subpages is not sufficiently supported for inclusion within the main article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the guidance. I overestimated the quality of vetting of subpages, and I will second guess their empirical support in my future edits. Your point about the NPR reference is well taken. Thanks againEvangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Will Beback So he wants a public review, what next? By the way, Keithbob makes a good point. I don't want to "open the door for" for " public campaigns to overthrow the judgements of the Committee, whom we elected to make just these kind of tough decisions" so maybe a public review isn't a good thing. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC) With two recent members of arbcom quitting and the committee seeming to have some serious issues [10] the much greater risk is allowing this group to operate in secrecy. Add to that the fact that arbcom's initial justification for an indef ban is, well, exceedingly weak. So yes if banned users want to appeal to the community they should be able to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Have started a sort of RfC regarding Arbcom's recent denial to grant Will Beback a return to editinghere. I have a number of concerns regarding this decision. One being that it was made without community input and in secrecy and two the evidence to support the original indefinite ban is so weak. Note that I was involved and did see the private evidence in question. It however is interesting to look at the public evidence as quoted by arbcom. Jimmy Wales was also involved in the issues in question and it would be interesting to hear him weight in. Doc James (talk·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC) RfC at Talk:Alternative Medicine Doc James, thanks again for enlightening me. I definitely want to steer clear of the word Complimentary if it means what I read at Talk:Alternative "Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment, in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods". The treatments I am proposing are definitely proven so we should steer clear of any term that can imply otherwise. I could not find and RfC or discussion about the use of the world alternative except as it related to surgery. Please point me to the RfC. Thanks.Sthubbar (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Some alt med has evidence to support it. It would not say the "China journal of Chinese materia medica" proves effect though. High quality reviews should be used and this would not be one. If the Cochrane collaboration had reviews on this topic they would hold greater weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Again with the talk page stalking. Don't use Wikipedia as a source in content discussions; it's not reliable :P. FWIW, I'd personally regard that definition of complementary medicine as something of a synthesis which should be reformulated to properly reflect the sources. Typically, it simply refers to the use of non-conventional therapy in tandem with conventional therapy and as a "complement" to it (and yes, like most definitions, it's essentially tautological - definitions have a curious habit of saying very little really); it's of British derivation and its adoption, if not coinage, reflects data which showed that most patients using alt med/CAM did not eschew conventional medicine (also, that it was less pejorative than alternative medicine for practitioners of non-conventional medicine interested in professionalising). Formerly, the definition in that WP article used to read that it was used in the belief that it was "effective" and hence some editors felt the need to qualify the statement with the "not proven by medical science" bit. There's no real scientific test that could be applied to idea of "complementarity" so its pretty redundant (likewise, the use of the term belief implies an absence of sufficient proof). You could mount a case that these sections should be renamed "CAM" or "Complementary and alternative medicine", and this would doubtlessly reflect the medical literature, but it won't really achieve what you want and is likely to be rejected in any case (I initiated a recent unsuccessful attempt to change the name of the alt med page to Complementary and alt med; I believe that rejection was erroneous and poorly reasoned but, as a signed up member of "don't give a fuckism" - a fantastic attribute, even if partly feigned, for editing in controversial areas - I'm not that bothered). Finally, I'd guess that Doc James is currently involved in a number of controversies, which is not to traduce his reputation in any way, but he might appreciate a little less talk page distraction just at the moment. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Why remove bullet points Doc James, I see there are bullet points for "Skin" "Criteria" "Differential Diagnosis" "Traditional small molecular mass drugs" "Biological agents" and "Notable cases". By what criteria did you remove the bullets? Should I go through and remove the bullets from all of those sections and turn it into prose?Sthubbar (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Have been meaning to getting around to doing that yes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC) For an explanation of "why": WP:PROSE -- Scray (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Comment needed can you clarify here what you meant be "He also had some interactions which were less than positive with an arbcom member who was supported by the arbcom generally for a prolonged period of time who turned out to be a sockpuppet". Dreadstar and Risker seem to be taking rather extreme interpretations of that at User:Jmh649/Will_Beback. 21:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Yes thanks. Nothing more was meant beyond what I actually wrote. Arbcom has previously had people who have become socks upon it. I guess it was not entirely clear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying, would you also mind straightening out Fladrif in the his second comment in his response here, I believe he's attacking the wrong party when he mentions Rlevse and not Sam. Fladrif is unnecessarily fanning this flame, which is a bad idea as you said in the section above. Dreadstar ☥ 23:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC) I've tried to hat that bit, but I'm afraid it'll only make it more visible. Would be better retracted and removed; if my assumption is correct about which arb you were referring to. Dreadstar ☥ 23:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC) I went ahead and removed it entirely, I'm sure it's not what you meant either, and it was too inflammatory to a just-calmed-down situation. Dreadstar ☥ 23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry do not see anything inflammatory there. And do not remove other peoples comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Your suggestion at TM Research Doc: I noticed your edit note re: an inadequate ref for the points on cardio health in the elderly. I am inclined to agree and I have made an edit accordingly. See: [11] Thanks for your input. EMP (talk 23:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC) No worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar I have always known that you are a smart guy but more recently I've come to know that you are a kind and good person as well. Gandydancer (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks Gandy. Wikipedia is a hard place to edit sometimes. Appreciate your words of support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC) RA GA status plan Doc James, you have done a great job updating the RA article. When I compare the article to other GA articles it is easily of equal quality, I even think it qualifies for A quality, and we can take this one step at a time. I suggest we take the following steps 1) Officially submit the page for review on the GA review page. 2) Proactively reach out on the talk pages to all WP:Medicine members that indicate rheumatology or dermatology as an area of interest and ask if they will review the article. 3) If after 3 days we receive no responses, then we reach out to the broader WP:Medicine community either on the community talk page or directly on the member talk pages. What do you think?Sthubbar (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC) IMO it still needs a fair bit of work. There are still a number of completely unreferenced sections. We also do not use A class at WPMED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC) OK, first of all, do you sleep? <Haha> That was rhetorical. I have suggested standardizing the TOC to the WP:Medicine standard and remove the sub-sections. If you tell which section need references, I will take those on. We can divide up the work.Sthubbar (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Does it make sense to do some work interactively? Doc James, do you think it would be worthwhile for us to work interactively on the RA article? I mean use some method to actively chat. As is, when I see you are actively updating, I try to stop updating so as to not having conflicts. You can send me off looking for references, like I just noticed the very first reference is form 2007 and you and I have both seen newer references than this. I have Skype and gmail chat. What do you think?Sthubbar (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Skype and Gmail are same as Wikipedia name.Sthubbar (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Sure gchat would work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC) My coyote senses are tingling It must be spring. The ducks seem to be back at allopathic medicine.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Have watched and warned editor in question.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Tks LeadSongDog come howl! 17:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Participate please Hi James, may you please take part in this discussion? Thanks in advance ●Mehran Debate● 14:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Your editing at Transcendental Meditation I haven't seen you around the TM topic for almost a year and I wanted to welcome you back. At the same time I notice that in your first edit (made on March 23rd) you deleted a substantial amount of content along with 10 reliable sources. The content and sources that you removed have been the subject of substantial discussion of the past year while you have been absent. When your removal of sourced content was reverted with the edit summary: Reverting massive change to article with out discussion. See talk , you reverted again. When your removal of source content was reverted by yet another editor, you moved into edit war mode and reverted yet again even though a talk page discussion was underway at the time. Therefore I wanted to inform you that your editing is in violation of the TM Arbcom (in which you participated) which states: Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational. In addition, an uninvolved editor at WP:Project Medicine has examined your removal of TM sourced content and your insertion of replacement text and said it "appears to present a very biased point of view". For these reasons, I think it would be in your best interest to self-revert and join the talk page discussion rather than continue to engage in the kind of confrontational editing for which you have been previously sanctioned and blocked. Meanwhile I welcome your input and good faith efforts to improve the articles in and around the TM topic area. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)