No edit summary |
|||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
: IMHO an influx of qualified and experienced editors just now would be just what the doctor ordered! Note that there are several related articles including [[Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies]] and [[Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]]. Welcome, [[User:Hordaland|Hordaland]] ([[User talk:Hordaland|talk]]) 16:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
: IMHO an influx of qualified and experienced editors just now would be just what the doctor ordered! Note that there are several related articles including [[Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies]] and [[Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]]. Welcome, [[User:Hordaland|Hordaland]] ([[User talk:Hordaland|talk]]) 16:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks Hordaland. Hope we can all move forwards.--[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 19:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
::Thanks Hordaland. Hope we can all move forwards.--[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 19:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::There are still some issues that need to be ironed out at Arb, or at least commented upon. May I suggest that the ADHD page be 2nd in line? Let the dust settle and allow editors who feel that they have been frustrated in editing, to reassess the article and the atmosphere within the community.--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:36, 20 July 2009
Welcome to my Talk Page. Please use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of my page.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Obesity
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Looking for help
I am working on a manual of style for dermatology-related articles at MOS:DERM, this after discussing it at the main MOS page. With that being said, I wanted to know if you would help me develop it, particularly the creation of a suggested list of sections for articles about cutaneous diseases (similar to what is found at the general medicine MOS, but tailored to cutaneous conditions, and better written)? I understand if you are busy, but wanted to see what you thought. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia!
age of the mutation
"The ΔF508 mutation is estimated to be up to 52,000 years old" <-- surely the mutation is as old as the gene. Does this really mean something like, "positive selection for this mutation may have started 50,000 years ago"? Italic text
Neuroblastoma
HI--hope you enjoyed your holiday! Hope you have a chance to peek at Neuroblastoma...not sure the history section is appropriate or complete. I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions. The other items have been addressed. Thanks for reviewing this article! DMLud (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Left notes on Talk:Neuroblastoma/GA1 as well. DMLud (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wondering--have you had a chance to finish the review for neuroblastoma? Thanks. DMLud (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Expertise
Hi, James. Why do you claim expertise about the article "Rorschach test"? Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- When I was claiming expertise I was refering to evidence based medicine rather than the Rorschach per say. Editors interpretation of level 5 evidence (expert opinion) as I have stated previously in no way justifies the senzorship of images on wikipedia for medical reasons. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Last line b4 criteria MaenK.A.Talk 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
GA review for Pacemaker syndrome
Hi Doc James, thanks alot for your initial review of the article, I am willing to get it into a good article level, and hopefully with your help we can achieve that. If you are willing to continue, please check out the changes that I've made here and add any new suggestions. One more thing, can you please explain what I can do to the lead section so it meets the criteria of WP:LEAD, your help will be much appreciated. Thank you again. GiggsHammouri (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
- News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Mass Casualty Incident
Hello, have heard that you may be able to contribute some in-hospital aspects to the Mass casualty incident page that I've created. Would you be interested in making a contribution? As well, suggestions about improvements (other than the notable lack of citations) would also be appreciated as I believe that this can be at least a good-level article. Just out of curiosity, where in Canada do you work? Frmatt (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
- Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps July update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Clarification for DocJames from Dr Placik (user otto placik)
I am a relative neophyte to the Wikipedia community and have run up against several obstacles and so I would like to make some clarifucations. Please excuse my rudimentary editing skills as I cut and paste to make my point.
In an earlier discussion to which you contributed, I have some comments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Private_practice_.22Before_.26_After.22_shots:
DocJames you seem to agree with user:Paravis above that "links to his personal pages must be removed" when referring to me Otto Placik and my images. However, I have removed all links while the user:Paravis you seem to agree with continues to blatantly have links on all his photos to a Dr. Michael Schwartz see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abdominoplasty_umbilicus_(belly_button)_reconstruction.jpg. I find this type of behavior dispicable and evidence that Pravis is operating in bad faith. How can he disparage me "keep people like Dr. Otto J. Placik from controlling and degrading the quality of this collaborative project" (his words) while he continues to attach links to a commercial website to each of his image contributions. Seems hypocritical to me! I would like your thoughts on Paravis and his contributions. 00:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Placik (talk • contribs)
- News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
For the Committee MBisanz talk 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
More about splitting
Hi. :) I note that you recently performed a split of material to the article Aspirin poisoning (good call; perfectly ripe for division!), and I just wanted to drop you a note to point out a few things about the procedure. As Wikipedia:Split sets out, when we split material, we have to provide a direct link to the source article. This is necessary because Wikipedia's contributors do not release their material into public domain, but retain rights to authorship under the terms of our licenses, CC-By-SA and GFDL. This wikilink satisfies that requirement by allowing readers to access the history and see who contributed what and when. Usually, we put into the edit summary something along the lines of "Split from Aspirin". Then, we note the split as well in an edit summary at the source article. That would read like "Material split to Aspirin poisoning", in this case. This helps make sure that the article is not later deleted, as it cannot be as long as the article to which the material has been split remains. We also have an optional template for the talk pages of both articles at {{Copied}} (instructions for using it found there). I have fixed the problems with this split, but I wanted to let you know for future use. Thanks, and if you have any questions about this, please feel free to leave a line at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Does not make sense to you. Okay, I'll try to explain it better. :)
- Most of our contributors realize that we can't copy text from books, magazines, or many web pages into Wikipedia articles because these are usually copyrighted. Many of them don't realize (including, at one point, me) that Wikipedia's text is also copyrighted. We're very used to thinking of it as the "free" encyclopedia. But if you look at the current Terms of Use at the bottom of every edit screen, you see that it says, "You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form." That includes if their contributions are copied from one article to another. The individual authors who contribute to Wikipedia agree to license their material under a very liberal license, but they still own the copyright. As long as we abide by the terms of the license, we aren't violating their copyright. If we do not abide by the terms of the license—which includes providing credit—we do. There's more about this at Wikipedia:Copyrights. As the terms of use note, a minimum credit supplied is a hyperlink or URL. This is why we satisfy attribution by leaving a note with a link to the location of the original article. Wikipedia's software preserves every edit history, which means that everyone has credit for his or her individual contributions. When we move material from one article to another, we need to maintain the edit history in the original article for so long as the moved material is still hosted on Wikipedia.
- Please let me know if this is not any better. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Copyright
At User_talk:Deacon999 you indicated that edits to wp are in the public domain. This is not correct. It remains the copyright of the author, but is dual licensed under the GFDL or CC-BY-SA, as indicated directly below the edit box. This is why we care so much about keeping history on articles.LeadSongDog come howl 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
ADHD
I have left the swine flu article as MCOTW for a couple of weeks. I think it is now time to move on. According to the votes tally on WP:MCOTW, the ADHD page is the next candidate. Could you advise as to whether the recent edit wars in this article have now quietened down? If not, are there dispute resolution measures underway? JFW | T@lk 12:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- In case jmh is still on some other continent, I'll say what I know. Case closed 14 July; one editor has a month to recruit a mentor, otherwise one will be appointed by arbcom. A couple of editors are on 1RR per page per week and all are admonished, advised & encouraged to play nice.
- IMHO an influx of qualified and experienced editors just now would be just what the doctor ordered! Note that there are several related articles including Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies and Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Welcome, Hordaland (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Hordaland. Hope we can all move forwards.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- There are still some issues that need to be ironed out at Arb, or at least commented upon. May I suggest that the ADHD page be 2nd in line? Let the dust settle and allow editors who feel that they have been frustrated in editing, to reassess the article and the atmosphere within the community.--scuro (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Hordaland. Hope we can all move forwards.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)