User talk:Doc James/Archive 19

RE: Support fact with review articles?

Dear Jmh649, Regarding the recent edit on Herbal Antidepressant, I understand that I must support my fact with review articles. What exactly do you mean by 'review articles'?

Thanks, Agwoodliffe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agwoodliffe (talk • contribs) 05:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Answered. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Test Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Important article about a scientific paper

J., if you haven't read this important article then you really must take a look. "This is a news website article about a scientific paper" Once you've read it you'll never need to read another.   Will Beback  talk  11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes saw this a while ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What's up Doc?

Hi there Doc James. Surely you remember me? We've worked well together over on Rorschach. I hope you also remember me to be a fair and well balanced editor. The intro on Circumsicion that you have been diligently trying to change is the work of many pro and con authors and hours and hours of discussion, actually days and days over many months. I can, and will if necessary, pull up page after page of debates we have used to arrive at consensus for the intro. Please don't delete all of the time and energy we have put into the article to make it as well balenced and informative as possible. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Gary Yes definitely remember :-) Will write you a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Antidepressants

you removed my anon edit from yest re US names Oleptro (trazodone) and Savella (milnacipran). I'd think WP would want most commonly used brand names in the article. If this isn't right place for "long" lists of brand names, where is? Drdaviss (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)drdaviss

Feel free to add them to the article about the specific drug in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Update on the origin of functional medicine

Hello..

I wanted to personally communicate with you and hope that we can make the functional medicine accurate in terms of what functional medicine truly represents. I have provided information on the origin of functional medicine from the first book ever written on functional medicine. Please review my first paragraph. I followed the rules of wikipedia and have provided a verifiable and credible resource to support my posting. Again, please let's work together. I have been teaching functional medicine for the last five years and will do my due diligence to provide reliable and credible information on the topic of functional medicine. Hope we can communicate on this very important topic.

Thanks. Sincerely, Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgrisanti (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing bolding from brandnames

Re your query at AWB: you might want to test drive some code I knocked up:

1. Assuming that you are now using the new skin... Open/create your vector.js page by clicking on this link.

   • If you are still using the old skin, open/create your monobook.js page, by clicking on this link.

2. Copy the following command onto your vector.js or monobook.js page:

   importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral.js');  //[[User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral.js]]

3. Save the page and (re-)load it – refresh the cache by following the instructions at the top of your vector.js or monobook.js page.
If you are unsure which skin is in use, you could create both a monobook and a vector page.

This will give you two buttons on the sidebar on the left hand side, visible when you click on the 'Toolbox' triangle when in edit mode: You can probably ignore the 'General formatting' button. On the other hand, the 'UNBOLD single words' button should target most of the instances of interest for you to unbold. Let me know how you get along. Let me know what sort of strings are not properly treated (diffs are always indispensable in the case of false positives). If I am not in the right ballpark, you may want to post a list of articles in a sandbox so I can assess what needs to be done. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Great will give this a try when I get home. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doc. Not sure if I am misinterpreting things and I apologise if I am. Is there an intention to unbold all brand names of drugs in the lede of drug articles? The problem I see with this is search engines eg google, yahoo etc use bold as one indicator of a word's importance with a page and decide then how high to rank a page in their results (see search engine optimisation). So, if brand names are unbolded in the long-run we could cause a significant loss of visitors to wikipedia as many drugs are searched heavily under their brand names. We don't want to end up on page 3 when we were the first few results on page 1 for brand names (often the first result).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point hadn't thought about that. Dozens of band names however IMO do not belong in the lead. Also we have been moving some of them to the drug box (see Lisinopril) and thus removing many from the lead all together. Many of brand names are being moved lower in the article. Esthetically I think these are improvements. Brands are also already capitalized and do not need the extra bolding. In the USA the NIH pays to have their site go first thus not sure how much difference this will make. Not sure how much we should let google dictate our formating. Always appreciate your opinion LG and happy to discuss this more before moving boldly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think there was a fairly strong concensus that emerged during a discussion on WP:MEDMOS that there should not be lots of brand names in the lede and only the original patented brand name should appear. The idea for adding trade names to drug box is a good one, but I still think the original and main patent name should appear early on in the lede and appear in bold, as more often than not lay people won't identify with the chemical/generic name and for reasons of search engines explained above. I had to look that word up (esthetically). :-p

You can't buy search engine rankings, unless you mean google adverts which appear above search results? I am happy to discuss further as well. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes on further contemplation I agree a SINGLE brand name in bold following the Generic name is indeed a good idea in the lead. What I do not like is seeing long lists of bolded brand names in the lead or anywhere else in the article for that matter. IMO brand name beyond the first if included should go in a section low in the article with a cap but no bold. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Request to discuss the forward development of Functional Medicine

Hello..

This is Ron Grisanti. I see that you have purposely deleted all of my contribution in favor of self promotion of Institute of Functional Medicine. I am not sure what your motives are but it would appear that it would be best to work together and follow the rules of wikipedia. Nobody is going to win if this continues. Meaning if I contribute to wikipedia and you contribute and we follow the rules than everybody wins. This should never be some turf war. I would like to work together and make this an outstanding wikipedia resource. I also want to be certain that we all follow the rules and provide valuable information for the public. Are you open to working together? Please let me know and I would love to discuss it with you. Thanks. If you would like to discuss by phone, my number is 864-905-7605.

Appreciate it. Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgrisanti (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A good place to start is by reading referencing requirements for health care information as found here WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Common Statement?

I started working up a combined draft of the points made by apparently like-minded people at User:Wnt/User_Faction/santorum#A_mutually_compatible_point_of_view. You're one of the 11 I think should be compatible. I'd like to get as many points as possible that everyone involved can agree on completely, so I'd much appreciate it if you could endorse the statement, and/or specify which points you reject or need reworked or explained. (and in all fairness there are a few I can see need work). Interested? Wnt (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

• News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news

• In the news: Revere, Palin and Colbert generate activity; British Wikipedia "cleanser"; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft

• Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page

• Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case

• Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Residential radon risk?

"Wikipedia: Identify reliable sources" say: “Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature”.

Primary sources have an important role here. Not only secondary sources that often, perhaps unconsciously, have been unsuccessful to make clear the role of tobacco smoke.

I guess you understand British medical journal, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Oxford Journals: Radiation Protection Dosimetry and Epidemiology as reliable journals? And is my text not an important complement to the preceding text? I don’t think you're questioning that it demonstrates essential uncertainties? And was the text not exemplary cautiously formulated to avoid misleading the public or upset sensitive people?

Watch for example this book to get a historical insight in the "radon industry" and the political system that strongly influenced our thinking about radon hazard:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uLLc84-XfLgC&printsec=frontcover&hl=sv&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Maybe there has been some shortcomings in the radon research...

T0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by T020 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We already speak about radon in this article with refs to review articles. Please use reviews. This is not a case for primary research. Especially when reviews are available. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A scientific basis is critical reflection and a questioning attitude. What you call "review" could easily get a different nature. The public demand clear information. Researchers want to show what they have done for the money.

An important question is how you want to see scientific knowledge. Is it the building of a cathedral, purposefully built stone by stone? Or is it a jungle of uncertain hypotheses and still inadequately tested theories that grows wild and is constantly changing? Where a scientific police force, in the form of Peer Reviewers on prestigious journals, can only do single strikes and sometimes shed light on some beautiful jungle plant or insect.

I think Wikipedia should describe what is perceived to be research consensus, but also leave room for criticism of this. Especially if it is based on good research, and in line with such thoughts like Cochrane account for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T020 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Cochrane publishes exclusively reviews and we try to use them extensively here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Those (including me) who sympathize with the Cochrane idea has a certain view of knowledge. They are scientific idealists with a passion for something they perceive to be the correct - and only - truth. Perhaps this can be criticized for lacking a holistic approach and too much focus on statistics and numbers.

But such criticism can be unfair. There is no contradiction. You can be open to holistic, humanistic approach and proven experience. But at the same time you can support the Cochrane approach, that filters out the (statistics/numbers)research that is not good enough. I think we agree.

And I have read more in Wikipedia's rules. Perhaps one should not pursue the rules too hard...

--T020 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Have replied on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Falsely Adressed Message

"Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Anal fistula, do not conform to our policies." - the message I just got from Wikipedia. In fact, I never even saw that page. Was it a bug, or was there some IP spoofing kinda thing going on behind the scenes? (I'm not logged in, to be specific) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.36.129 (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It says in the box at the bottom of your IP talk page, " Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users". Graham Colm (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

• News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief

• WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet

• Technology report: Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice

DocJames, I am needing to see the discussion to which you are referring in the Insite Talk text, where you say that there has been some form of consensus on the use of the Mangham article in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. I am currently thinking that we need to take this content dispute to mediation, and failing that to arbitration, but keen to see what you are referring to. Your link on the Insite Talk page only goes to the JGDPP article. Minphie (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been reverted by many different editors over months. You might try a WP:RfC first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Statins in SAH

Dear James,

Thanks for the gentle encouragement. I wasn't quite sure what your post on my talk page meant. Was it that the edit I did on statins and SAH wasn't referenced properly (I used the PMID search function)? Or is it your view that they shouldn't be mentioned because the evidence is poor? My motivation for the addition was because their use is actually very common in neurosurgical units in UK (but based on quite poor evidence).

Comments gratefully received.

Thanks, Daniel (new user obviously!) Dhj davis (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry just say the first ref and not the second. Readded the text Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, clearer now. Dhj davis (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Epidemiology of syphilis

See Template_talk:Did_you_know#Epidemiology_of_syphilis, it's only 51 characters too short, so if you can add an extra sentence, it'd be good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your work on the abortion article(s). The practice and procedures have been part of the medical texts for almost 5,000 years....where else would you find the definition? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI

WP:ANI is not a venue for those kinds questions. Nor is Wikipedia in general. --KFP (contact | edits) 20:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And last warning. Post a soapbox like that there again and you will be blocked. - J Greb (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Um this relates to an ArbCom decision. ANI is where community consensus is developed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I made a little mistake using rollback there, sorry. Should've manually undone the edit instead of rollback. Still, ANI is not the right venue. --KFP (contact | edits) 21:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Doc, I think that consensus, human sexuality, applies only in the context of a user topic ban and is not a "community consensus" per se. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Still not sure. It appears that within the context of an abrcom ban the consensus is that abortion is NOT human sexuality but this makes no sense IMO and unable to find where said consensus was developed. What I have discovered is that Wikipedia has a serious civility issue which needs addressing of much greater importance than the issue of does the community feel abortion is or is not part of human sexuality wrt arbcom bans.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI might be the place to propose that a specific user's topic ban on human sexuality should be expanded to include X,Y or Z. ANI is not the place to "lobby" for a general community consensus on a general topic (I only use the word "lobby" because that is how it will be seen not because it is your intention). Does this help? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure I guess. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the ArbCom case on the user in question? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No where was it again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this [1] it? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. I was being too curt yesterday. Should have been more tactful. Apologies. --KFP (contact | edits) 12:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks KFP. Will spend some time trying to figure out what I did wrong / where I should have posted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Abortion_lead_sentence_-_straw_poll_consensus

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - RoyBoy 22:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Not really the place to move this. Thus not going to comment there.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

After seeing the AN thread, I looked up the changes. I wonder if you'd relieve my curiosity about what exactly we're calling a deliberate third-trimester pregnancy termination, if "abortion" can't be used to describe a termination involving a post-viability fetus. Feel free to reply at User talk:WhatamIdoing#Abortion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Epidemiology of syphilis

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Total number of times JGDPP articles have been cited

Hi Doc. Do you know how many times the so-called Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice has been cited in legitimate academic journals, for anything but criticism, by researchers or scholars who have no conflict of interest? The number could be as high as two. That's it, just twice.

And because I have yet to see the full text of the articles where those two citations are made, it may turn out that not even a single non-governmental journal has ever written favorably about JGDPP or any article it has published. This is what I didn't have time to research sufficiently or present adequately at the last love feast about it at RSN, incidentally.

The only legitimate reason to cite it at all would be if one of its papers makes it into the news, as occurred when an official of Canada's conservative Harper government mentioned it to support closing Insite. Any editor should certainly feel free to delete-on-sight any conclusions or statements cited to it, and if asked to explain, to just say in a sentence or two that never being favorably cited means it isn't taken at all seriously by the legitimate academic community, and that Wikipedia can't take it seriously if the academic community doesn't.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: Russian president uploads to Wikimedia Commons; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

LibGuides

I'm very hurt and angry thateyou reverted everything before sending me a message. And you did them all at the same time, so you didn't even look at them first. You just deleted. What gives you the right to do this? And then you say "welcome" as if that's supposed to make everything okay. You are wrong. You deleted all these with no discussion. This is an existing template. It is provided by a respected university for use in research. There are many sections to each topic and I don't think you looked at any of them because you deleted them too fast to do that. I was trying to help other people. You aren't. You want people to stay ignorant. You shouldn't be at Wikipedia. You want to control all the information. You hate new people and enjoy wasting their time. Maybe you hate American universities too. And your name doesn't match your discussion page so you musts be hiding something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.206.23 (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I did look at them. I am not sure what is there of use. This for example [2] has no content. Not only that but is messed up the heading [3]. This too [4] what of us is here [5]. Wikipedia per WP:NOT is not a collection of links. Sorry. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are orange tabs you're supposed to use. Couldn't you figure that out? Cheers yourself. You're not a nice person and you're not helpful. And you're wrong. I read about External links. They're for further information.

Not sure to what orange tabs you refer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

External links on eye condition pages

Hi Doc James, many thanks for the guidance it’s really helpful. Having looked through the external links guidelines I see why you were concerned about the links I added, it was not my intention to come across as a spammer! I genuinely think those RNIB pages are useful reliable sources of independent info, with a more human/patient focus that most of the Wikipedia info, which tends to be very science/medical research based. The RNIB information is in a similar ball park as the National Eye Institute information which is linked to from a lot of Wikipedia eye condition pages, but RNIB is a UK charity so I was hoping to reduce some of the U.S. bias. Do you not think that’s enough to justify the links? Kat384 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for recent PTSD edits!

Hey - just wanted to express my appreciation for the intelligence of your recent PTSD edits. I think the reduction in length of the TOC simply makes it do its job better. Your other edit - of a header - goes the same direction: new version is briefer, and better writing. We need more of this sort of thing, in addition to continuing work on checking and improving sources, etc., etc. Thanks for your caring attention! (Also find myself my enjoying your T. Roosevelt quote, on your talk page. I just have to like that men!)

Tom Cloyd (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries I am glad you found it an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

External link

Hi,

I have a website "http://depressionsymptomssigns.org" which is related to Major depressive disorder page on Wikipedia "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder". I will like to link my website with this anchor text "depression symptoms and signs" with this page. So kindly help me regarding this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitshah a13 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

External link

But if there is more description of your page which can be highlighted from my website so cant u add my link for further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitshah a13 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

External link

Ok. I appreciate for your prompt response. If any thing you can help please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitshah a13 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

External link

Thanks for the info.Ankitshah a13 (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Circumcision

I think the penile cancer section in the circumcision article could use some attention, as it seems a little outdated & rather poorly written. Larke et al have recently published an extremely thorough systematic review (PMID 21695385); if you'd like a copy let me know by email. Jakew (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure will loot at it when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Psuedoscience Infoboxes

Hi Doc. I do see a problem with the TM articles being over-influenced by TM-involved editors. Many of the TM articles read like a POV quilt. I see criticism ghettoized and softened (or "rebutted" by pro-TM POV talking points) and mainstream viewpoints missing or buried within the fringe viewpoint quilt. But personally, I don't think pseudoscience infoboxes are the way to go. Rather than the infoboxes, the TM articles themselves should be brought into compliance with WP:FRINGE. The material now contained in the infoboxes should be clearly and prominently summarized in the article lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: the boxes - have you tried an RfC? I think you'll have a tough time getting wide consensus for the infoboxes, however there should be no issue with getting the community to support bringing the article leads into compliance with FRINGE, e.g. "The TM organization claims (these specific) techniques can allow people to levitate and control the emotions of others remotely, however mainstream science considers them to be pseudoscientific." - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

External link for Pilgrimage, Christian Pilgrimage, Taize Community, Cajamarca, Vipassana, Behavioral Neuroscience and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

I’m a new editor on Wikipedia. I recently tried to add an external link to what I believe is relevant content that is found in Linfield College’s institutional repository. I am not trying to spam, add inappropriate links, or promote a product. Because the material is directly related to the topic, I’m not sure why this link would be considered inappropriate. Can you explain why you removed the external link? Thank you!Ssumkhu (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:ELNO Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, this editor left me a similar message; I responded on his talk page. It might be best to continue the dialog there to prevent fragmentation of the discussion among the talk pages of the many editors who reverted his edits and the many articles that he targeted. 22:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Anal sex article again

Hi, James. Again, you confuse me when it comes to this article in relation to Wikipedia: WikiProject Medicine. First you rated it as Low on the importance scale, which I did not understand then (though you later explained, and we agreed on Mid). This time you completely removed it from the project's scope, which I reverted. Exactly what do you mean by "not directly medical related"? And exactly where does the project say that topics dealing with medical issues must be "directly related"? It doesn't make sense to me at all, because if you mean people who have anal sex won't necessarily have medical problems, that goes for any type of sexual activity. People who have vaginal sex won't necessarily have medical problems either, and yet I don't see you removing Sexual intercourse from being within the project's scope. Anal sex is just one aspect of sexual intercourse, so why shouldn't it be within the project's scope? Why shouldn't it be within the project's scope when it's been shown to be far riskier than any other type of sexual activity? The article clearly demonstrates this. Anal sex is riskier in terms of STIs/STDs, and is even risky when it comes to the anatomy of the anus/rectum, if people aren't careful (sufficient lubrication, and so on). So exactly how is it wrong to list this article as within the scope of WikiProject Medicine? Because, no doubt, when it comes to having a project weigh in on aspects of this article, WikiProject Medicine would be just as important as Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality (even more so considering how inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality can be). Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

• News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news

• In the news: WikiLove roll-out; €25,000 in damages for being removed from Wikipedia; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject

• Featured content: Two newly promoted portals

• Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin

• Technology report: June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For the dedication and hard work shown at dengue fever, which has rightly become a featured article! JFW | T@lk 04:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

	A message of Wikilove
	Me too, me too! Congratulations on the promotion of Dengue fever to featured status. I learned a lot about this disease from the article, and your edits helped make it of the highest quality. Thanks for all the work you do on Wikipedia! – Quadell (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Tuberculosis' FAR

I have nominated Tuberculosis 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. GamerPro64 17:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Improper Protection of Circumcision

Hello Doc. As a contributing editor of a highly polarized article you should not be taking the reigns and protecting the article yourself. This could easily be construed as you protecting your own interest. If you are concerned over vandalism and/or edit wars you should list said concerns on appropriate notice boards. Please remove page protection and follow standard procedures. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Doc, I would have to agree that you shouldn't be the one making that kind of admin action per WP:INVOLVED. Could I ask that you please remove the semi-protection? Best, NW (Talk) 19:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We tend to have terrible problems with vandalism at that article, and have done for a long time. Semi-protection has been a tremendous help. Maybe another admin could re-apply protection? Jakew (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure I semi protected as this was what I thought it was before it was fully protected. I someone wishes to unprotect feel free. I am not sure if I will have secure internet for the next week.--70.28.245.114 (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes so the article was indef semi protected however when full protection ended after a week instead of reverted back to semi it reverted to nothing. I do not see applying semi again an issue as it was already applied before full.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's more defensible, but you really should leave this to uninvolved admins at WP:RFPP. It eliminates any chance of complaints later. NW (Talk) 23:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We appear to be dealing with a bunch of WP:SPAs who have no intention of discussing the current evidence. Thus we shall continue as before :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Fort William Sanatorium

I have started an article about Fort William Sanatorium, a now-closed tuberculosis hospital in Thunder Bay. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Bronchomoniliasis

I have posted a comment at Talk:Candidiasis#Bronchomoniliasis which may be of interest. I noticed a journal article on bronchomoniliasis as I was looking for information about Fort William Sanatorium. I'm not a doctor, and I don't know whether bronchomoniliasis should have its own article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion

Read this just now ... I do have more familiarity with Wikipedia than you. Do you understand why I consulted the Admin noticeboard? Are you under the impression Wikipedia is a medical text? Your reverts imply it is. - RoyBoy 01:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No Wikipedia represents the best literature out there. This is what my revert implies. I am not sure what you getting at? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So yes? "best" means medical verbiage is superior for surgical abortion -- is most appropriate for the broader encyclopedic topic of abortion regardless of caveats (exceptions to viability), its technical nature (Britannica tries to resolve that). While stability and disputes can be shrugged off as pro-life nit-picking (I've been involved since 2006), the technical nature of viability is unencyclopedic and simply inaccurate outside a medical context (Britannica again tries to address that, with "usually"). I'd prefer to avoid weasel words in our lead. - RoyBoy 01:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with others that "death" without appropriate qualifications is inappropriate especially since most sources do not use it. I am happy with "usually before viability" as a compromise. Does not appear you had much luck resolving things at ANI which was why I did not join in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not post to the Admin Noticeboard to "resolve things", one specific thing, Wikipedia isn't a democracy for good reason. I was curious if any Admin clued into that. Yes, I would have liked one of them to intervene on that point, but I wasn't getting my hopes up. :) Death is defined once, viable is not. Yes, there is an implication of alive / person-hood with death (Orangemarlin thought I allowed pro-lifers to sneak that past me), viable has its own implications and assumptions. The difference seems to be our comfort level. We aren't merely defining a medical procedure in a clinic, with a doctor and patient who consented; rather a complex topic that happens worldwide from sterilized hospitals to war torn jungles. - RoyBoy 02:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure to what you refer here "Death is defined once, viable is not."? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Death strictly defined is the termination of biological processes of an organism (from Wiki); this is the only official definition that I'm aware of. While in common parlance its usually used to describe the termination of an independent lifeform, this does not define death. Viable, medically the consensus is (20 weeks' gestation or fetal weight <500g); but even there I am to understand 20 weeks gestation is about 50% chance of actual viability, "prior to 28 weeks' gestation" there is no medical standard for viability. Legally viability changes from one jurisdiction to the next. Medical texts can ignore that, we cannot... or we really shouldn't. - RoyBoy 02:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all the earliest survival is 21 weeks 6 days. There has never been survival at 20 weeks. PMID: 11060525 As there is not death of an independent lifeform there is not death with abortion. If I was to remove someones toe I have not killed anything in the usual sense. While biologically one could argue that I caused the death of the toe people just do not refer to it as such.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I was repeating what I saw in talk recently, but I stand corrected on viability; thanks for the ref. I believe "independent" is OR, as is killed; the toes was alive, now it is dead. Ultimately that's why death was chosen in 2006. - RoyBoy 04:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We already use the term "termination" which is sufficient.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"termination of pregnancy" wasn't sufficient. While "nonviable" tries to pick up where termination leaves off, this is a medical convention, not necessarily a reflection of broader reality; both in late-abortion practice and legal variety. As a medical convention it is ideal, not necessarily elsewhere. Thanks for the mini-discussion, I guess we will continue if necessary back on talk:abortion. - RoyBoy 00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)