| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James. |
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
|
|
I just wanted to thank you for your extensive work with cleaning up the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market page, as this is a very important subject that I am deeply concerned about. David A (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks User:David A :-) Stuck in an airport and agree this is very important legislation that could have a significant effects on the Internet.
- Discussion also occuring HERE about raising awareness further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Thank you for the information. David A (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now supported the first option, signed the petition, and donated money to help spread the word. David A (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In case you are interested, Julia Reda, the heroine who has fought the most against and made the public aware of this totalitarian legislation, made a call for a common action day on August 26. I cannot post the Youtube link here, but you can visit her official channel to verify if you wish. David A (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please help before I lose my mind. I've made some edits, which have been reversed incorrectly by an administrator. How do I reply to the administrator to tell them they've reversed my edits in error?
Thanks
Steven H Stevenhayward (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Stevenhayward We use very few capital letters. "Borderline personality disorder" is not "Borderline Personality Disorder" per our manual of style. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a general rule that conditions are not treated as proper nouns -- not just diseases such as schizophrenia and influenza, but more basic conditions such as anger, fear, fatigue, etc. They may be proper nouns logically, but they are not treated that way in writing. Looie496 (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went to Nora Volkow hoping to find out more about the substance of her work for the government on addiction but instead found a paragraph in the lede talking about Mind and Life Institute and another about TEDMED. Seems kinda weird and out of place, wholly out of line with WP:WEIGHT. Maybe it doesn't even belong in the article. What do you think? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No specific thoughts. If you feel it should have lesser weight you could move it to the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Eleven years already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James, thank you for you feedback. Perhaps this passage might work better?
"Home care in the United Kingdom exists in a state of disarray as various private firms compete for government contracts in a race to the bottom which often results in elderly and vulnerable people being denied the care they are entitled to. The crisis has speed to hospital wards where sick, elderly patients who would usually receive care either at home or in specialist care homes, take up hospital beds whilst recovering from minor ailments such as colds and flu, meaning that less beds and services are available for emergencies.[15] Furthur backlogs of patients occur because elderly patients cannot be discharged into care at home until adequate provisions have been made, however as home care is largely handled by health care businesses who often go bankrupt or hand back unprofitable government contracts, the is not the infrastructure to care for sick and elderly patients in the UK.[16]"Fluorinated tears burn my eyes (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is ref 15 User:Fluorinated tears burn my eyes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips as I dip my toe into the Wikipedia world
cheers, Alan Cassels — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.168.8 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any takes on the notability of DotLab? Regards,∯WBGconverse 15:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Looks like paid for spam User:Winged Blades of Godric. Based on press releases republished. Not notable IMO. Everything else by its creator also requires clean up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was patrolling new pages and found this new editor: Behzad Azarmju M.D. I am guessing you like to welcome new editors with his/her skill set. Their first draft looks promising. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 01:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes looks like a good editor. Has been welcomed :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell from WP:COI, everything I am doing is appropriate (even self-citations are allowed when relevant! and I have no financial interest in these topics). I am happy to refrain from directly re-inserting Frontiers citations on pages where you remove them, as you do not feel they are sufficient. As per the suggestion on WP:COI I might recommend them for review or (re-)insertion by other editors.
You have suggested that Frontiers in Neurology is not a sufficient source, but the reasoning behind that is based on Beall's defunct list (which as far as I can tell never listed Frontiers in Neurology, but had issues from a different journal under Frontiers control). Beall's personal opinion was that all Frontiers journals might therefore be suspect, but that is a personal opinion and not data... and current lists of potentially predatory journals do not include Frontiers in Neurology ( see https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/#F ). My understanding is that Frontiers in Neurology meets the criteria for a reliable source, and I would prefer to continue summarizing current research findings where relevant.
I will take extra care not to insert any egregious citations.
Sightvision (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Citing oneself is a COI. That together with this being a Frontier journal... Happy to get others opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a COI dispute of some kind, so I will refrain from directly inserting the Frontiers citations on the pages where you removed them. Sightvision (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Citing oneself is a COI": agree, and Sightvision is singularly focused on a group of authors from a certain U.S. lab inserted here, here, here and here at least. I assume good faith, but this is a high proportion of their overall editing and it doesn't look good. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am new, and starting in one place seemed like a reasonable thing to do. I was primarily working my way through the topics that were covered by the one review (and inserting text wherever related material existed but the applications of fixational eye movement analysis to the clinical conditions were not discussed, despite the relevance). As an example of my thinking, the reference I inserted here was updating a reference from 2009 with a literature review that is almost a decade more recent and more directly relevant to the sentence, from some of the same researchers as the original reference. My read of the WP:COI (subsection "citing yourself") was that self-citations were allowed if relevant and when conforming to other policies, hence my statement to that effect, which I think only made this worse. I felt my approach was meaningful, and I felt that starting small and approaching this from a single trajectory would help me learn the ropes. I understand now that this is problematic. I am also sorry for pushing back too hard on the Frontiers issue--I was reacting to what I perceived as scientific findings being discarded en masse (all journals related to those on Beall's list). I overreacted. I will make an attempt at learning all of the rules I have been pointed to before posting again, to avoid further concerns. I have semi-retired my page accordingly, but do plan to rejoin. I will take extra care at that time not to insert any egregious citations. Sorry for the inconveniences. Sightvision (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Sightvision not a huge issue. Wikipedia takes a little time to get the hang off. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert this?
The beta lactam fact is in the body of the article. Many pharmacology articles provide drug class or mechanism at the beginning of the lede. Sbelknap (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved it. I did not revert. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Many articles about drugs have drug class or mechanism in the first sentence of the lede. You removed beta-lactam from the first sentence of the lede for amoxicillin. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The goal is to keep the first sentence easier to understand. So moved it to the infobox and a separate sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it "simpler" to omit the drug class/mechanism from the definitional sentence of the lead? That hardly seems "simpler" to me. Many other articles include this information in the first sentence, and for a good reason. What wikipedia policy describes this rule? Why are you doing this for my edits but not for the edits of others? What is your goal here? Sbelknap (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello James,
We met at Wikimania in London a few years back, I was helping Cochrane UK. I hope you are well. I have been doing research on health and war and think there may be something to say about the relationship between the two. I am not quite sure how to approach this though as a section within an article/ new article?
Within the "War" article there is talk about the effects of war, but no talk about how health can be affected by War. I am from Syria so this subject is close to heart and I have just finished a position doing research on this. I think this is important and I acknowledge I was paid for similar work so I do not want to do anything wrong Wikipedia wise. I would appreciate your help and assistance.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amosabo (talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Amosabo the big thing will be do we have sufficient high quality secondary sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Political violence, collective functioning and health: A review of the literature Why isn’t war properly framed and funded as a public health problem? There are a few amosabo t@lk; 11:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most readers will be unfamiliar with the term "ringworm."
Most readers will be familiar with the term athlete's foot.
Why are you removing athlete's foot from the lede, when this is the most common reason why the drug is used?Sbelknap (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. I think both are commonly used terms. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ringworm is a broader category within which athelete's foot exists. We still mention ringworm of the foot [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In the US, the term athlete's foot is the common parlance for tinea pedis. In my 30+ years of practice, I don't recall anybody saying "ringworm of the foot;" they say "athlete's foot." The term ringworm is heard occasionally, particularly from older people from the southern US, but much more common is for people to call this "a rash". In the south, one may hear tinea called "spots." Here is what UTD says: "Tinea pedis (also known as athlete's foot) is the most common dermatophyte infection."
- If tinea pedis is the most common dermatophyte infection, and most lay persons know it as athlete's foot, then that term ought to be used in the wikipedia ledes for miconazole, clotrimazole, and terbinafine. Sbelknap (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added it here[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case I agree with Sbelknap. In the US, at least, products are frequently advertised as useful for treating athlete's foot. I don't recall ever seeing an advertisement for treatment of ringworm. In fact, I have to admit that until now I was not aware that ringworm has nothing to do with worms -- the term is that unfamiliar. Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Doc James: We are writing to thank you for your edits to our Wikipedia entry on childhood trauma as a risk factor for suicide. We are new to Wikipedia and were surprised to see all of our edits gone within 24 hours of adding them, but grateful for the opportunity to learn. We noticed your professional background and your work with students and Wikipedia, and would like to invite you to join the Early Childhood Trauma Collaborative Innovation Network (Trauma CoIN). The Trauma CoIN is a growing network working to address early childhood trauma. We seek innovative solutions to addressing the wide-reaching impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), helping people and communities heal, and preventing ACEs in future generations. Our Wiki subgroup is working to channel the expertise of our members to ensure current science of trauma and resiliency is represented on Wikipedia. We would love to explore how we might bring your expertise and wisdom into our network. Would you be willing to have a brief exploratory conversation with us? Many thanks for your consideration, Trauma CoIN Babblinon (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
