Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:08, 21 September 2010

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.

Consider this!

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

• News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes

• In the news: Public Policy Initiative, Houellebecq plagiarism?, Article revisions as book

• Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment

• Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration

• WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab

• Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

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

Threaded discussion on Arbitration pages

Hi James. Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement are generally structured very differently from other pages on the encyclopedia. While it may be common to partake in threaded discussion at these pages, such a thing is generally frowned upon on pages like WP:AE or WP:A/R/A. Could I ask that you please refrain from doing so in the future? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of this and as far as I know have not commented in anyone elses sections. If I have please provide a dif and I will move my comments. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edith Sirius Lee pointed out these two diffs: , . I am not sure if it is still an issue, but I just wanted to give you a heads up. NW (Talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and I removed the comment on Aug 9th here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This particular statement was seen as inappropriate because the AE was closed and it was requested that we make no further comment. In fact, your explanation for this removal was "missed the bit about no further comment thus removed my comment". It had nothing to do with the fact that the comment was made in my section. In fact, you wrote a much longer and disruptive comment in TimidGuy section and did not remove it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No one commented on this point at that time.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I requested that you remove your comment, pointing out the request that we do not modify this closed AE, and after a while you removed it. However, this is beside the point here. The point is that, in a very disruptive manner, you broke the rule about threaded comments in this AE. Indeed, no one commented on this point at the time, not even Cirt who applied the rule even for a small threaded comment in my appeal of this AE. This is why I say there is a double standard here. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a minor procedural issue. It will not really affect your appeal. Yes in the previous AE case I misplaced text. All the best.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The rule itself might not have a big effect on the appeal, but the existence of a double standard at the time of the AE is a serious concern that should be considered in this appeal. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Short Course Immune Induction Therapy

This is an odd article. I started cleanup of refs today, but I'm concerned by the coincidental appearance of TOL101. Both seem to be created by SPAs, and there is a certain sense that they may be acting for Tolera Theraputics. This ClinicalTrials entry pertains to both. The term "Short Course Immune Induction Therapy" (SCIIT) appears here on their corporate site. It may all be above board, but I think I smell something vaguely murine. Still, the subject matter does appear to be well documented, if not by exactly that name. Try scholar on "Short Course" "Immune Induction" for a few examples. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely does not seem above board. Appears to be someone attempting to us Misplaced Pages to advertise their product. All I require is one review article that covers the topic at hand.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to it, but the abstract at doi:10.1016/j.trre.2010.04.002 looks promising. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see this term mentioned in the text of the article you link above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I expect the term in the article should be moved or merged to something more like Acute graft-versus-host disease, with a significant change of focus. The keyword I spotted in that doi linked review abstract is "tolerance induction", but I wouldn't think that's a very useful WP article title. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It'll take me some study. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've stepped OUT of the box at user talk:Dgetts. If I have, please revert me.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

As I wrote on Jimbo's talk page, the condition of pending changes trial was straightforward and unambiguous. Try for 2 months, default to stop unless consensus says otherwise. Now Jimbo's trying to change the rules of the game by putting everything on hold while he comes up with some plan, which draws a lot of criticism. A much bigger crowd showed support and consensus for the Misplaced Pages talk:Pending changes/Straw poll#Alternative phrasing, which says "Remove PC from any article (except for articles specific to the purpose of testing and demonstration outside the mainspace)" OhanaUnited 02:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Was away a few days and missed that.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to bedbug

I can say only three things. (1) Wow. (2) Thank you. (3) Again, thank you.

Yes, you might have left some spelling and grammar errors, but fixing those can be left to mere mortals. Like me. Yakushima (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Still have a few more things to add yet.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

talkbacks

DYK nomination of Bedbug bite

Hello! Your submission of Bedbug bite at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smartse (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Herpetic whitlow - email

Hi Just sent an e-mail via Misplaced Pages re use of your herpetic whitlow image. RuralVirologist (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Red bull#Health effects

The quote there at the end of the first sentence seems off (grammatically unsound) but I can't get through to the source. Can you take a look? –xeno 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sent to you.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As I suspected, it must've been vandalized or something: . –xeno 18:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

V and MEDRS

There's discussion about a proposed change to WP:V which may affect WP:MEDRS that might interest you. See Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Academic and media sources. The current proposal, #4, is towards the end.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see were this will affects WP:MEDMOS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's right. It's an RS issue, not an MOS issue.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

bedbug bite and immigration as vector

What you wrote on the article's talk page and on my talk page seem to conflict. On the article's talk page, you say you agree. On my talk page, you write:

Here is the direct quote "International travel, immigration, changes in pest control practices, and insecticide resistance may have contributed to a recent resurgence of this blood-sucking insect in developed countries.1, 3

But the footnoted sources and actually make no mention of immigration.

I'm fine with saying that a lot of people blame immigration and immigrants -- that's a fact. But if so, we've also got to say that more authoritative sources on bedbug resurgence haven't singled out immigration as a factor worthy of mention. Yakushima (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes and to that I agree.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Misplaced Pages IRC

Hello again, I'm just here to recommend that you start using the[REDACTED] IRC channel. It's a great way to interact with other users also it would be cool to have a ER doc to annoy talk to in general. Their would be so many uses for you, a doctor and admin. Also you could make a live IRC collaboration channel for participants to corroborate in real time. Hope you consider it :) Peter.C • talk 02:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit a great deal during nights when not busy at work. Thus have limited access to IRC. Also feel it is best to keep discussion on wiki. Makes things easier to follow ( and they are hard enough to follow as they stand now.) WRT medical stuff though feel free to drop me notes on my user page. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hehe that works for me. Know a site like this that is licensed in CC?Peter.C • talk 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

MedFriendly

your proposed deletion is inappropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zewups (talk • contribs) 06:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi James,

Excuse the faux pas...

I supposed that what was good for the goose was good for the gander.

I stand corrected.

I was very surprised to see that CNS Ayurveda Chikitsalayam & Research Center was allowed promote their products and services at their hospital in Kerala on wiki... and since that was being allowed, I reasoned that since their are doctors doctors are in India, and our doctors in India... that it was fair game.

The only difference is that ours practice online.

I am sure you have a good reason that our doctors are not allowed to promote their practice on Wiki, and I will just have to accept that.

I have come to learn in life that not much about it is fair.

BTW... the personal physician of HH The Dalai Lama's practiced online before his demise a few years ago.

Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.17.233 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is an encyclopedia. We limit commercial content as we must to keep things from getting out of control. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cardiac Electrophysiology Book

I would appreciate your input on the Misplaced Pages book I've put together here. Thanks! Ronk01 talk 03:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

• From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost

• News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes

• In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Misplaced Pages hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Misplaced Pages

• WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories

• Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more

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

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

RFARB

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)