| Revision as of 16:39, 3 August 2015 editBon courage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,162 edits →WP:AVDUCK: nil desperandum← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:42, 3 August 2015 edit undoDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,257 edits →WP:AVDUCKNext edit → | ||
| Line 212: | Line 212: | ||
| :::PS - You got your wish - Racz was delisted as a GA - your efforts in "fixing" it worked. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC) | :::PS - You got your wish - Racz was delisted as a GA - your efforts in "fixing" it worked. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::{{tps}} Of course if the article ever gets into decent enough shape, there's no reason why it shouldn't be re-nominated for GA. ] (]) 16:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC) | ::::{{tps}} Of course if the article ever gets into decent enough shape, there's no reason why it shouldn't be re-nominated for GA. ] (]) 16:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::It is way better than it was I agree. ] (] · ] · ]) 16:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:42, 3 August 2015
| Translation Main page | Those Involved (sign up) | Newsletter |
Cochrane Collaboration meeting in Vienna, October 1stHi Doc James, I 've heard you might be able to visit the Cochrane Collaboration meeting in Vienna. Somebody (User:FloNight?) reserved some time for a wikipedian pre-colloquium . We've skyped with FloNight about this recently, and several people would like to attend, but we need some details. Are you, or ia FloNight planning to give a speech, a workshop, or anything else? Do you want us to prepare something? What will be our objective? Please answer on our wikiproject's subpage, English is OK. - Or, if I'm completely wrong, please forward this to whom it may concern. Regards, --MBq (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Bravo…on the welcome and directions given to new users. You are gentler than I would be, but that is why you are so accomplished here. I will write more with regard to possible additions and clarifications to your message, but I do think making an included, overt statement about "no doses" near the top of the list is important, also stating that toxicity and contraindication content should always appear in ledes of dangerous agents (often, only efficacies appear, esp. in cases of recreationally used substances). Otherwise, some direction on identifying quality sources—a phrase on how to pick a good textbook, e.g., "text should be up-to-date (within last 5 years), and be widely used by medical schools and research universities"—might also be helpful. Cheers, more later. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Tunisian ArabicDear Mr., I am writing you today because I would like to publish Tunisian Arabic in Applied Linguistics and I knew that you have done the same with Dengue fever. I know that you are probably working with the Board of Trustees now. However, I ask if you can review my work and see if he meets to GA requirements. Furthermore, I ask if you can explain to me what I should precisely do in order to publish such work in Applied Linguistics. --Csisc (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Tinnitus, bidirectional relationship?Dear Doc James, On your edit comment for the Tinnitus article, you seem to say there is a bi-directional relationship between Tinnitus and depression. I know that's what you learnt at college but it doesn't mean it's true. Most of the scientific articles (e.g. ) I've found just relate depression as a comorbidity; but do not take the risk of saying it's a cause. Some others do, like this one, clamming anxiety exacerbates tinnitus, without being clear about the meaning of "exacerbate" (- does it permanently make tinnitus louder and with more frequencies ?).
You've probably already heard about this very famous sociology study. Don't you think a parallel could be made with tinnitus patient; as they are told by their entourage and their ENT doctor that tinnitus comes from their anxiety ? Doesn't it make them feel anxious ? My goal is to do a review of scientific articles in order to clarify what those claiming anxiety/depression is a cause actually mean; and find how anxiety-caused-tinnitus are different from tinnitus caused by acoustic trauma (symptom description + physiological response). Would you be interested in joining your efforts with me in this task ? Kind regards Galeop (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
your edits (summarized as "formatted")Hello, I'd like to discuss your reversion of my edits to the BPD article, which addressed the overuse of one particularly vague (and subjective) adjective in the article, by sometimes replacing them with more apposite & descriptive adjectives. I have noticed that many medical sources avoid this overuse. I believe my edits improve the overall quality of the article, as the overuse of "negative" sounds both robotic, lazy and profoundly lacking in nuance (especially when the idea is to describe something as nuanced as emotions) and am going to restore them for now so that further edits don't get in the way of doing this easily in future. I'm also wondering how your edit summary, "formatted", would be considered to describe these reversions. As Clubjustin4 pointed out above ("July 2015") it's "helpful to others if you your changes to Misplaced Pages with an accurate edit summary." If you have time/inclination to reply, please do so on . Thanks --TyrS 04:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 July 2015
Altered editHi, Is this the forum where I reply? I'm very new! The breast cancer edit I made was to add a journal article that was more recent than the previous one (I did not delete the previous) and I believe the article discusses the importance of contraception in the breast cancer debate. Kind regards, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmhayes78 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Global Alliance for Self Management Support for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Global Alliance for Self Management Support is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Global Alliance for Self Management Support until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, This is Dr Manuel Serrano, I did not remember Dr James, but yes probably was him who helped me to create this page. It is a network and it is not for self promotion or for profit causes. I was editing some other page with references based in my research experience in social support and I was surprised that was considered vandalism? Here is the text at the page Abortion (deleted): Help pregnant womenWomen thinking on abortion are under pshychological stress before and after abortion, based in scientific research papers. So one of the ways to avoid antiabortion violence is providing social support to pregnant women thinking on abortion. Some networks of researchers and organizations as the are working to connect women with local resources using technology and social media for those under psychological distress and thinking on abortion . There are pages both in Spanish and in English. Referral places, non for profit and non linked to religious institutions are: lare located in the United States as Option Line, Stand Up Girl, Spain as Red Madre and Pensando en Abortar or Latinoamerican Countries as Centro Para la Mujer and Centros Ayuda Para La Mujer Embarazada
ReferencesHi Doc - thanks for your message re medical references. Which article was it in relation to? Ben Finn (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Chronic venous insufficiencyIn CVI, I was attempting to locate an article to link Phlebetic lymphedema. Which from what I gather means "vein swelling". Would linking to Lymphedema be adequate? BTW: I also linked Hyperpigmentation and piped Venous ulceration to Venous ulcer Cheers Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 19:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Despite…positive feedback from the Admin overseeing the deletion merger discussion (User:Sandstein), the further discussion of the merger of the PBC Foundation and main disease articles was preempted by one editor, and the PBC Foundation page was deleted (by User:Jytdog, despite repeated personal requests of him not to). I should now ask what noticeboard would be best to hear the case—where the issue is the premature closure of the discussion, and declaration of consensus of at best (at the time) two editors overruling the poor new Jrfw editor. That poor treatment is only part of the issue though—I think the article was (i) inaccurately, indeed falsely tarred-and-feathered by one editor as not having available sources (it does, and I have since provided them), (ii) the articles are both better served by the content remaining separate, and (iii) the patient population in the U.K is far better served by being able to find a high-profile WP article, that directs them both to the WP disease article page, and to the foundation. (One simply cannot argue that the needs of the disease page and the organizational information are copacetic: adding further content to make clear what the organization can do is at the expense of the focus/brevity of the disease article. That is why charitable organizations have their own pages.) Administratively, a 3:1 merger decision is not a broad editor consensus (esp. when the principle discussion was 1:1). It is simply shameful to ramrod that result when both the initial issue of good article sources was addressed, and when other another seasoned and informed editor came on board to help make the original article move toward being a better article. Moreover, the article, while overlapping with medical issues, is not a medical article per se, and so the standards to which it was held, initially, were likely overzealous: it is an article about an organization, and the question is whether it is a notable organization, and it most certainly is, judged solely by the citations that are available for it (pro and con). Bottom line, I think this was a premature and poor decision, and I think user Jytdog had it in, either for the poor Jrfw editor or the article, and so ceased seeing reason about it before I came on the scene. The only thing we are aimed for, at present, is an outcome allowing one editor to say "I won." This is not what we are supposed to be about, and I need to know how to alter course, administratively or otherwise. So, what do you think is the best way to address matters? Is there a less combative way to undo this one editors heavy-handedness, which amounts to seeing that traces of the old are removed (and so discussion is made more difficult, so that the merger cannot be undone)? Can you, or someone else, mediate? Or, at worst, what is the best noticeboard venue to take this to? Your advice asked, as an experienced hand here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Noting for the record one point, and one continuing inaccuracy: First, we cannot follow Admin Sandstein's advice ("try to build a new consensus to not merge")— .: it is true, as this editor says, "the time for is past"—only because this editor rushed to delete the article, etc. Second, I was not present at the initial AfD, so nothing went against me. I simply came upon the issue, immediately after, and asked that we not rush to complete it (and did substantial work offering good sources, etc.). In response to this, no good faith was shown. All caps only appeared after being repeatedly ignored, and when it became clear that this editor was rushing to change the playing field, by deleting the article before the renewed discussion had ended. Otherwise, this same editor has defended his lack of respect, repeatedly, and knows this could all go away, if he would return the Foundation page to the main article space, so all could easily find it (that is, self-revert his rush to delete it while discussion was still ongoing). As long as that disrespect for the spirit of the process stands, and so disrespect for the two constructively and collegially engaged editors stand, I have nothing further to say in reply to him. Doc, your advice, as I said, is asked, as an experienced hand here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
One can still work to improve the content in question. One is also free to userfy the previous content to work on it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC) WP:AVDUCKDoc, you know the stick needs to be dropped and you have the ability to stop the disruption caused by the 3 editors named at ANI. The disruption is escalating. I have now wrongfully been accused of defamation and you need to oversee this insanity. JPS is removing images, it appears a sock is now involved (actually the behavior demonstrates what the essay is all about), there is some serious tendentious editing taking place without consensus. I already know you don't approve of my editing but I'm asking you to step up to the plate and do the right thing now. JPS, Ca2James and Quack Guru seem to think the only consensus they need is a nod of ok from each other. Well, WP:Misplaced Pages Essays suggests otherwise. ATG created an essay in his user space as a counter to AVDUCK so they need to move on and stop trying to alter the meaning of AVDUCK. Since JPS also has a different vision of what the essay should look like, he needs to create his own essay or help ATG improve his fairytale essay and get it into namespace. When I called for the RfC, the intention was to help improve the essay by getting input from the broader community. It was not my obligation to do so - I did it because I truly want to do the right thing. The taint that was created by Project Med editors over the very first essay is still unjustly haunting AVDUCK after we made drastic changes. It represents the opinion of the editors who created and co-authored it therefore it is not subject to the same scrutiny as an article or PAG. I'm asking you to please intervene and stop the disruption caused by those 3 editors who refuse to DROPTHESTICK before it escalates to ARBCOM, especially based on the history I've had to endure with these same editors. It's pretty obvious what's happening now and I don't think it will be difficult to prove that I've been targeted by the same editors who have stood in opposition to my edits dating back to Griffin, all of which is based on their misapprehension of my intent, or perhaps it's all punitive or retaliatory because I took the initiative to hold certain editors accountable for their double standards. If I put it all together - Griffin, Kombucha, AVDUCK, the MfDs, Griffin's AfD, the RfCs, COIN, Racz and ARBCOM - well, it isn't going to demonstrate the best example of WP:AGF by the same few editors who have been hounding and harassing me. All I'm asking is that you act fair and reasonable with regards to this low-impact, harmless essay that has brought out the worst in those 3 editors. They need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop the tendentious editing and disruptive OWN behavior. Atsme 17:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Honestly Atsme, and I'm sure it's not intentional but this actually does look alot like WP:ADMINSHOP. I see you mention that Doc James may not like you but I don't really think that's the case. Doc James you can answer this, Can you really do anything here and are you really even supposed to? It's been brought to the community at ANI and now someone is specifically asked there if ATG should be banned. Doc James is the admin and I trust their experience in that regard but it seems to me that ANI takes precedence here over that of one Admin. Which again Doc James will really need to answer that. It's my personal view that ATG hasn't done anything wrong.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
|
