Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::::::Quack, care to explain to DocJames why you've admitted to being in contact with Edzard Ernst and using his research in a manner that is consistent with being a meat puppet? There is a constant here, and that is many editors from a range of CAM articles having issues with the manner in which QG is editing which is generally non-collaborative, heavy on ownership and tendentious talks. Perhaps this is not the right venue for this discussion due to the obvious COI present. Regards, ] (]) 22:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Quack, care to explain to DocJames why you've admitted to being in contact with Edzard Ernst and using his research in a manner that is consistent with being a meat puppet? There is a constant here, and that is many editors from a range of CAM articles having issues with the manner in which QG is editing which is generally non-collaborative, heavy on ownership and tendentious talks. Perhaps this is not the right venue for this discussion due to the obvious COI present. Regards, ] (]) 22:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Quite a hypocritical remark from an Alt Med purveyor with a huge COI there. -] (]) 23:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Quite a hypocritical remark from an Alt Med purveyor with a huge COI there. -] (]) 23:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::How is there a COI when we have expertise in a specific domain of health? Also, using acupuncture for chronic pain and chiropractic care for MSK issues isn't really fringe, especially when the data suggest comparable effectiveness to standard medical care. How about we discuss the fact that QG is admitted to being in contact with Edzard Ernst, been given research papers from him and then acting on his behalf? Also, he's edited Ernst page and James' page too, which was shortly followed with a barnstar by DJ. That's a legit COI, not simply some random accusation with no evidence to support the claim. Regards. ] (]) 23:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.
Sockpuppetry at article Traditional Chinese medicine
Greetings! I noticed that you removed the {{pp-sock}} tag I added under the grounds of "...Reverted good faith edits by Jayaguru-Shishya (talk): This tag does not accomplish what you wish it to. (TW)...". What do you exactly mean by does not accomplish what you wish it to? What do I wish? As you can see from the edit history of the article, there has appeared mysterious random ip-addresses that pretty much has no former editing history in the article. Therefore, I think it'd be quite well-reasoned to protect the article from such. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your answer. Actually, it seems to me that the mysterious ip-address got already banned by another administrator so I think it's okay now. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry QuackGuru but I don't quite see how it is related to the post here what you just said? If you are making an offense against me here in front of an administrator, could you please give us a full list of these supposed articles where I have been following you to? Actually, it seems that you have been following me here since the post is not even about you, unless you are the master of that banned sockpuppet in question. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear QuackGuru, I am not following you. How did I find the article? Because I am interested in the subject, that's why. As you can see from the Talk page, I have been contributing to the article with respect to new sources that can be used in the article. Those have also received support from other editors. As you can see, I've been also requested for collaboration by other editor in order to develop the article further.
All the edits I have made in the articles have been briefly discussed at the article Talk page. It is actually you whose editing behaviour have been discussed at two articles already: Traditional Chinese medicine, and Chiropractic. For the latest edit you were referring to, it's been discussed at the Talk page. It seems it is three editors against one in that discussion.
Few words about your former editing behaviour. You have been banned earlier] for edit warring the alternative medicine articles. Also, quite recently you have been warned by administrator EdJohnston for edit warring the very alternative medicine articles here: ,
as well as by another administrator, Tiptoety, here: . "...Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring... //// ...I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions..."
I told you about contributing to sources used in the articles, as well as the current collaboration going on. Nothing to add there. The edit you are referring to, you are standing alone against 3 other editors; it as been discussed already at the Talk page. That one said before as well.
You have been warned multiple times about edit warring; last time today at 07:13, and 17:38 . However, it seems that the same editing pattern keeps repeating with you: on 21:02, 9 May 2014 at the article Chiropractic, you made a revert on {{POV}} tag. On 19:18, 14 May 2014, at the very same article, you made your second revert on the very same thing. Taking into account your former ban, your former warning by administrator EdJohnston, as well as your former warning by administrator Tiptoety, it clear that you have not learned your lesson.
Quack, care to explain to DocJames why you've admitted to being in contact with Edzard Ernst and using his research in a manner that is consistent with being a meat puppet? There is a constant here, and that is many editors from a range of CAM articles having issues with the manner in which QG is editing which is generally non-collaborative, heavy on ownership and tendentious talks. Perhaps this is not the right venue for this discussion due to the obvious COI present. Regards, DVMt (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
How is there a COI when we have expertise in a specific domain of health? Also, using acupuncture for chronic pain and chiropractic care for MSK issues isn't really fringe, especially when the data suggest comparable effectiveness to standard medical care. How about we discuss the fact that QG is admitted to being in contact with Edzard Ernst, been given research papers from him and then acting on his behalf? Also, he's edited Ernst page and James' page too, which was shortly followed with a barnstar by DJ. That's a legit COI, not simply some random accusation with no evidence to support the claim. Regards. DVMt (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Misplaced Pages Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "water fluoridation".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot06:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.151.40 (talk)
With respect to refs we try to use high quality secondary sources like review article or major textbooks. News sources are not typically very good per WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
A gesture of appreciation for your skill in defending the integrity of the articles here while also contributing to a welcoming, collaborative environment. Thanks for your help the last few months. I don't always agree with you, but I'm always glad you're here. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Formerly. I think our disagreements are usually fairly minor in the grand scheme of things :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello James, I wanted to ask about the photos where you are in the picture, particularly your main userpage photo File:James 5 (Final 4)a.png, and File:WikiProjectMed2013Meet.jpg. The file summaries state that they are your own work but obviously if you are in the photos it is reasonable to assume that either you used a timer on your camera or someone else took the photos. If you used a timer, please clarify this in the summary. If someone else took the photos, please identify and credit them and ask them to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so the OTteRS team can add a ticket to the files. You've made some great contributions, especially the medical images, which is why I thought it'd be more courteous to drop you a note. Cheers. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk)22:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The one of me I took with a timer. I do not remember if the group photo was taken with a timer or not. If it wasn't I do not remember who took it. User:Bluerasberry do you remember? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Bare url
Jmh, I do not know what 'Bar url' that you are referring to.
Hey James, I was at a meeting last night and spoke with one of the faculty deans. Tried to get some buy-in for expertise help. As usual, the major problem was how to incentivize academics. His position was the articles need to be published in a journal with a 1/2 decent impact factor. Old problem. But it got me to thinking, has the WF/you explored trying to get the articles pubmed index (or a snapshot of the an article) and/or a self-published journal of articles (FA/GA) that have been peer reveiwed (which could then be pubmed indexed)? Given the reputation of WP, I'm sure the impact factor would rise quickly on its own. Ian Furst (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I strongly encourage you and other collaborators to continue this project (as long as it results in better quality articles). LeRoc might make a lot of rumour and some people might agree with him, but in no way he reflects the opinions of the Dutch Misplaced Pages community. More importantly, he has no support in the guidelines. You are very, very welcome to help improve the Dutch Misplaced Pages. Let no one prohibit you things that ore not prohibited by the Misplaced Pages guidelines. Or even then, ignore all rules as long as you improve quality. Thanks! 2001:610:1908:C000:D9AE:A393:9DAE:7DF7 (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC) (nl:gebruiker:Josq)
Hello, Josq!
I want to sneak in here with my opinion. I think that LeRoc is right that the whole discussion should have happened within the Dutch Misplaced Pages community before the translation into Dutch started.
I've had that discussion on Norwegian Misplaced Pages and answered people's many, many questions about the project; that was the best way to do it.
Why do you want some control over the initiatives of others by demanding a discussion first? Why not just assuming good faith? LeRoc seems to violate the nl.wikipedia guidelines in this regard. 2001:610:1908:C000:D9AE:A393:9DAE:7DF7 (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Josq. PLease continue the project. Any translated article may be temporarily placed in a holding position and in time be integrated. There is no rush and with few knowledgable editors it takes a while, but it is worth the wait for the Dutch wikipedia. --VanBuren (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. We have had some articles waiting for a fair time now. It seems that some are unable with the previously added articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
From the discussion I understand that some people want to have the opportunity to discuss before the rewritten article is being placed. I think this is absolutely not necessary, but others have a different view. To satisfy them, I suggest that 2-3 days before you place the article, you temporarily place it a subpage of your personal namespace, and provide a link to it on the talk page of the article (not in De Kroeg anymore, because there half of any proposals are treated very negatively, unfortunately). Article talk pages usually are only followed by people really interested in the subject and by the original authors. If no response, place it. If some response, discuss if any parts of the previous version are worth preserving. This way, no objections should arise anymore, because people have had the opportunity. 83.117.195.245 (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)(I'm sorry, this was me, Josq, again, from a different pc)
Okay I was not planning on placing any of the articles myself. I placed this article on my talk page with the hope that someone would integrate it. This appears to be taking place :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
On my talk page, you noticed that when I was merging w:nl:Gebruiker:Jmh649/Schizophrenia into w:nl:Schizofrenie I did not merge the references (from the english version) into the new version. The reason for this is that I do not like to use references when I have not checked them. In my view, using references implies that you have read them, or at least checked if they really substantiate the claim. I mentioned this in w:nl:Misplaced Pages:Medisch café, after doing the largest part of the merge and stated that "Mocht er twijfel zijn over de juistheid van bepaalde beweringen/tekstfragmenten, dan kunnen de bronnen daarvoor desgewenst in de vertaalde tekst of in het engelstalige lemma worden opgezocht en gecheckt.", meaning that if someone questions the validity of certain claims/fragments, the sources may optionally be searched for in the translated version or the English original. In the past I have translated (parts of) articles in other languages (mostly english) for use in the dutch wikipedia, and I have always done it that way. Regards, 195.240.78.238 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Altough I am Itsme (on the dutch wikipedia), I edit here under IP, since my SUL is not complete. There is a different 'Itsme' active on the english wikipedia.
That is unfortunate. All the references were checked by myself and additionally the article underwent FA review on the English Misplaced Pages before translation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Re: changes
Thank you for your feedback, Doc James - I did try to be careful of that. I don't think the level of sophistication is entirely inappropriate for an article concerning biology, but while I was making the edit, I did think it sounded a bit awkward. I will keep that in mind and see if I can clean that up some. --Sphecidae (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The article is about a disease that affects primarily the worlds poorest. As such it is even more important to use worlds like "dog" instead of "canid". And terms like "common" instead of "prevalent". I am not so concerned about more technical words being used in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. KJ04:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Bipolar disorder
Hi James, I just added a more accurate picture to Bipolar disorder so that it's actually of lithium carbonate, but the picture is huge and I don't know how to reformat it down to an appropriate size. Can you help? Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC):
thanks your comment. avcept it may be that some causes of psychosis not relevant to schizophrenia. however
- there may be some refs in psychosis article that are relevant to schizophrenia, and are not in the schizophrenia article, and
- I don't have time to check and copy them across into the schizophrenia article.
So putting in this line seemed a safe way to point folk to looking for themselves on the psychosis article. However no worries if you feel inappropriate or unsafe.
Thanks so much for all you do in this area of wiki. JCJC777
We already mention and link psychosis in the article. Without a ref to support that the causes are mostly the same we should not include it at this time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Consult + see also
First, why is wrong putting See also section in articles? (See bradycardia) You can't privatise articles and forbid everybody else to edit them.
Second I'd ask you what could these results indicate: ECG shows early reporalisation, blood count - Le count: 3.1, Creatine phosphokinase 130, Lactate dehydrogenase 395? Alex10:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
One does not put terms in the see also section that are already in the article. This is the guideline and not one I was involved with creating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
All right. Thank you. I'm sorry for not being informed. Can you link me that guideline, because I haven't read it yet. And can you answer the other part of my query? Alex15:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:See also. And if you read WP:MEDMOS we typically try not use these section in medical articles. With respect to your second question there is not enough details presented. So it could me almost anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
a.png){kind=link}
