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.
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages.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.
You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Misplaced Pages editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Reply to No Wiki
Indeed, I meant that those articles don't exist yet, but I didn't know how to state it otherwise. Regarding the translations, there's a bit of an issue. Completing an article with content from English Misplaced Pages is one thing. But a 100% copy of an article from en.wikipedia is to be avoided since we have different styles and standards. I can develop the articles myself, if I have time. Right now I'm working on the WP:MEDRS for ro.wikipedia. By the way, I don't know who is getting the Romanian articles on tw.translationcenter.org, but it would sure be nice to know. Regards, Winter(talk)19:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Just mark them as to whether or not you wish them translated by the people at TWB. Instructions for figuring it out who is doing the translation are here . You just need to click on the file in question and enter the password provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Just read the discussion you had on nl.wikipedia (Medical integrator wanted). It strenghten my thoughts regarding the general purpose of the translations. They represent an ambitious and noble plan and I strongly appreciate and support your efforts. But a simple copy-paste for the non-English countries is a mistake.
From our point of view, a Romanian medical article should primarily reflect the situation in Romania. We write for at least 18 million people. Those people are mainly interested in how the things are in their own country, where they live, not elsewhere. Additionally, a comparison can be made with other European countries and USA. Thank you again for understanding. Regards, Winter(talk)11:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey James :) I don't think there is a substantial controversy, except perhaps for how they're counted epidemiologically. But I'm happy to be persuaded. Best, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about that... Do you have a reliable source for that, which actually mentions "controversy"? I think that's something else with respect to differences (presumably clearly explained to readers) in statistical counts. —86.128.169.211 (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Could I request your indulgence just for a moment? I'll try to explain in the edit summaries (so much quicker). And then talk if need be :) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it's really worth following through, imo... Incidentally, makes me wonder about the best way of addressing relevant social debates on MED pages in such a way as to get appropriate coverage of the significant POVs. A real issue perhaps for key controversial topics like Error and Harm??. Iatrogenesis (a distinct topic, imo) is a real mess from this, erm, point of view. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
So to clarify, yes I am like any other editor in this discussion. Maybe Adjwilley could clarify Leprof's answer to my question "which viewpoint is missing and what text with high quality secondary source will improve the situation"? Supposedly it is in here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Though receiving an apology for my response to your perceived bias, and being presented ample evidence both of our common commitment to high quality referencing, and of the real thorniness of the issues involved, you declined to reconsider your early action or to engage in any later constructive effort. As a result, the article, one in which you have no real interest, and admittedly no expertise, is no better off for the intervention. Your contribution amounts to removal of a request for expert attention (to help change the course of the article); you departed the article without sufficient immersion in the article to understand the issues, leaving the same two editors in conflict, one emboldened, the other stepped upon (and so little chance that real multi-editor progress on a high importance Chem article). The fact that there is any hope arises because an independent editor from who-knows-where, with zero expertise, Padillah, stepped in, and demanded straight answers from both sides. As a result, the editor with whom I had the conflict acknowledged that the organisms and leaves as definition of NPs, and the Natural Products Foundation trade publication definitions probably did not need quite so prominent a place in defining the course of the article. None of this thanks to your skip a stone, one-sided interrogatory approach. I wish now you would commit to recruiting further expert editors, since you leave the article with just two, both headstrong, and both inclined not to listen to the other. (Physician heal thyself, I know. But while it takes two to tango, it does not take two for intransigence or injustice.) Bottom line, this article is not better for your having touched down, and your link to Adjwilley was a disingenuous slight given the real issues and real attempts to engage you. In the end, your one action, in its capriciousness (relative to your admitted lack of expertise), and, in retrospect, the clear one-sidedness of your probing, together cannot support a conclusion of an impartial, constructive visit by an Admin. I can live with it, but am disappointed in you and this system. Feel free to remove this; I will not post again on your page (or anywhere, on this enormously time-wasting matter). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
We are a general encyclopedia. Content needs to be written for a general audience. Thus one needs to be able to explain issues to the general audience. There was no disingenuous slight. Right now I am travelling with limited Internet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The person in the photo is me. I am Asian and do indeed suffer from this condition. Am I too dark or is the background too dark or otherwise? My face there is visibly flush red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Block1of4 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The difficulty is that you are such as small part of the picture. The lighting is so dark. The picture is blurry. And the background contains too much other stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Page blanking
Hi James, I don't know if you saw my edit summary, but any kind of page-blanking, deletion, merge/delete, redirecting, or merge of an article needs to go through one of the following official Misplaced Pages processes: WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, WP:MERGE, or WP:DELETE. The article in question has already passed a WP:PROD, so it would need to go through WP:MERGE or WP:DELETE for any kind of page-blanking, deletion, merge/delete, redirect, or merge. These are Misplaced Pages policies, no matter what kind of article it is. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the policies. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:MERGE "For uncontroversial mergers, no permission is needed to merge; just do it. If your merger is reverted, it's controversial and you need to discuss it." As you have not commented on the talk page your revert is a little strange. Unless there is an issue I have followed process. If you would have joined the discussion I would not have reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi James. The policy page reads: "If your merger is reverted, it's controversial and you need to discuss it." As you know, I had already reverted the page blanking twice, and already noted in my edit summary that WP:MERGE needs to be followed, so it's controversial and needs to be discussed. Softlavender (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You have not provided any justification or joined the talk page discussion thus your edits are somewhat disruptive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
James, no justification is needed when following Misplaced Pages policy. Not following Misplaced Pages policy is what is disruptive, especially when requested to do so. I'm glad and appreciate that you have now followed the WP:MERGE guidelines; I will post there when I have time. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
As I've mentioned above, the blankings/redirects needed to be reverted because they were against Misplaced Pages policy. No discussion was necessary. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
There was no merge proposal to comment on when you blanked/redirected the page without one. Only after I reverted a third time and notified you here did you create a merge proposal to comment on. Softlavender (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This was the text "A 2014 systematic review found that, in depressed patients, acupuncture combined with SSRI's outperformed patients recieving on SSRI's alone." and this was the ref . The ref is NOT a systematic review. It is a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
