Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:22, 19 September 2009

Welcome to my Talk Page. Please use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of my page.

Archives

1 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Obesity

Gloabl Warming

Hello Jmh649!

You can´t blame the fat people for the global warming.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/04/rejection-of-science-squared.html http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/07/blame-fat-people.html

I think you should remove it from the Obesity article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.131.13 (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have once however it was replaced.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Note

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rorschach test has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, –xeno

regardless of health organizations?

Hi JMH, do you really want to put your name next to something that says to do something regardless of what health organizations say? Is this going to be good for your career? Are you sure that you want to be a leading force in reducing rehabilitation services (which is what will happen if psychological tests are made invalid by the exposure of the stimulus materials)? --Vannin (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Vannin none of your arguments are valid. I am very happy to have my name attached to the global distribution of scientific information. I am proud to contribute to an encyclopedia which attempts to the provide the breadth and depth of human knowledge to the world at large. I find your position exceeding anti scientific and anti intellectual.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, "exceedingly", intellectual. Spoiling tests used in scientific research by widely distributing their questions and answers to the general public is hardly advancing science.Faustian (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes well than continue to pretend that computers have not yet been invented and we have not yet reached the 21st century.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		To Jmh649: illegitimi non carborundum. Axl ¤ 19:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I just watched your CBC interview. It is indeed ironic that the psychologists' complaints have caused the Rorschach blots to be more widely viewed (the Streisand effect). I see that you've shaved. Perhaps you should update your photo? ;-) Axl ¤ 20:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey James, been a while since I've spoken to you in a non-editing context, how you holding up? This whole dilemma with the Rorschach article can't be easy for you, nor the publicity you've received on and off-wiki. Thanks for your continued efforts in helping free information to the public. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Doing well. It has been all a bit much. Many thanks for the kind words.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Saw today's NY Times article... I very much hope that doing the right thing on Misplaced Pages does not lead to serious repercussions. You have done the right thing, of course; the irony is in the ignorance of the folks who believe they have a right to control content on Misplaced Pages and the behavior of others... Each protest that hits the newspapers makes the outcome they fear (wide publicization of the test) more strongly irrevocable. Nathan 15:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is unfortunately becoming personal. I however beleive in what I am doing and am willing to stand up for what is right. The psychological profession has brought this upon themselves and is not in anyway looking the better for it. Paternalism went out of vogue decades ago. Anyway appreciate the word of support.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Reports of Misplaced Pages's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Neuroblastoma

any thoughts on finishing the review? Thanks DMLud (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, neuroblastoma is listed as GA but wondered if your reassessment was finished. Thanks DMLud (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Misplaced Pages Loves Art winners
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach

Hi James, I've just warned Faustian that he risks facing admin action if he continues to comment on your personal or professional life. If he does it again, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me or another admin know, so we can take action. If you avoid commenting yourself on these issues, or responding in any way, it will help to take the heat out of the situation. SlimVirgin 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

James, it would be better if you would not comment further on Faustian's posts. He has been blocked. If another admin sees fit, he may be unblocked. But what is needed now is a period of calm, for the sake of the article and its editors, you and Faustian included. SlimVirgin 05:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your valor in defense of information on the ten inkblots in Rorschach test despite the hateful inquiries and outright attacks by your colleagues. You are truly a banner and a shield for the cause of free knowledge. Ipatrol (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks appreciate it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned GA Review

You did the initial review of Pacemaker syndrome on June 9 and then made no further edits to the review. Since the review has been ongoing for almost three months now, I think it would be a good idea to make a final assessment and close the review as either a pass or a fail. Three months is a tad long for a GA review to take place. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 31 August 2009

• Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
• Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
• Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009
• News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members
• Misplaced Pages in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you?

In the page HIV you appear to have made a Revision as of 12:05, 6 August 2009. You added text and some references. Several of those reference tags, <ref name=Clerici /><ref name=Morgan /> and <ref name=Campbell /> appear to be causing cite errors. Could you please go back and fill out the full sources to fix the cite errors. Thanks. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Request

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning ADHD has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/ADHD and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Unionhawk

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/ADHD. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom

You are mentioned in an arbcom request for modification. Fortunately such requests should not be as prolonged or as indepth as the main arbcom as it is just a request for an ammendment. Unfortunately scuro's latest comment on wiki med collaboration project has made me feel that it is time to bring this to the attention of the arbcom.Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_ADHD Other issues can be mediated but this one I feel is one that needs arbcom intervention.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of a NEW request to amend ArbCom case

A new request for amendment of the ADHD remedies has just been filed. This one asks for additions to Remedy 3) Scuro placed under mentorship. This notification is being added to the talk pages of scuro, Literaturegeek, Jmh649, Unionhawk and WhatamIdoing. - Hordaland (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)