User talk:Doc James/Archive 3

ADHD as a biological vs psychological condition
I notice that you are doing a pretty good job allowing a fair diversity of opinion here. One of my deleted posts, in which I carefully referenced how psychological experiences can change the physical brain, still remains, I believe, an important reference source and a reasonable argument point that might explain differences found in the brain of those with ADHD. How would I retrieve it and repost it. Thanks and keep up the good work, Simon Sobo M.D.--24.151.119.232 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How long ago did you add it the text? And what user name did you use when you added it?  If you had a user name the easiest way would be to look thru your contributions.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force
-- MifterBot I (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bates method GAN
I noticed your review of the Bates method article and would like to inform you that the edit-war has been resolved and the article has been renominated. Edits made after the nomination are minor and the article appears to be relatively stable. I was hoping to entice you to revisit the article and review it again. Cheers! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

More pics for your articles
Hi there.. just curious if you ended up needing better quality pictures for Obesity & Related articles still. - FatM1ke (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

New questions
I have posted some new questions regarding medical procedures and, if avaliable, wanted to know if you would leave some comments there? kilbad (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Brown-Sequard
Thanks for your concern and help. A E Francis (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up Brown-Sequard in Wikibooks. I will work on it there to make it better. A E Francis (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

About my mind maps
Hi, first thank you for your concerns to make wikipedia better, I appreciate that allot, but about my mind maps, the whole idea was to make another way of presenting the article, since I got some e-mails from different users asking about my maps, thats why i thought they could be useful, and i dont mind removing any of them where you see their use is inappropriate. Thank you for your time :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ADHD and Pranayama
Hi Jmh649,

Why was the 'pranayama' treatment method removed from the ADHD page? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&diff=279033629&oldid=278990157

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.114.227 (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ADHD Talk page contents 'moved'
Hi, Where did you move the talk page contents? Perhaps you meant to archive them? Unomi (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Brain ischemia
Hello, you GA reviewed the article that I am working on and I just have a quick question. Well, maybe not quick. I am a little confused with the review you posted. For example, when you listed the classification system. I am confused so I was hoping that you might elaborate a little for me, if you do not mind of course. I also wanted to thank you for reviewing my article. Thanks, --Saunc2011 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, from the GA review you gave, under number 4, are you saying that I need to make the title of Brain ischemia more clear in that it encompasses ischemia stroke and global cerebral ischemia? Sorry to bother you, but I just found the actual review, instead of just the comments made on the talk page. I am new at the whole GA review thing so please bear with me! Thank you, --Saunc2011 (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The state of modern medicine
Hey Doc, in regard to your recent comment over at talk:adhd, have you read many of the books on modern medicine and the pharma industry such as The Truth About the Drug Companies, Powerful Medicines, Our Daily Meds, ect.? I've read a few and just today finished Overdo$ed America. Each has different focuses, but I think Overdosed would be right up your alley: the author is a family practitioner and discusses lifestyle and preventative medicine at length. II | (t - c) 03:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sore throat
Hello, I do not understand the meaning of your edit summary here. This edit, reverts all the recent additions I have made to ensure the article is respecting of WP:CITE and WP:V. Furthermore, to me, the your edit summary does not indicate that you are reverting my changes. Could you please explain to me how you would like to handle the information which is "unverifiable". I would like to point out, that it is customary to remove the information, until there is sufficient reference and I will be doing just that by revert your edit. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Epstein-Barr viral infection is mentioned in the one of the first paragraphs of the article as having a correlation with pharyngitis. The continued discussion of the subject matter is hence quite relevant and therefore I will return the information regarding the treatment via; Electromagnetic field therapy which shows some signs of being helpful for stimulation of the immune system for clinical conditions such as the Epstein-Barr viral infection.[14] --CyclePat (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, gargling is not mentioned in the second reference, ie. The Mayo Institute, as an alternative medicine. It therefore does not belong in the article because it is not properly referenced. Finally, the Mayo institute indicates a lot more then simply Alternative Treatments, they use the term Herbals which refers to herbal Medicine. This should be clearly indicate for the status quo appear to take this out of context and lump their conclusion with the other references. I am reverting your recent edits again and hope we can work at resolving these issues. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, You may call me Pat. I trust I can call you James. Thank you James. That's quite important to know for someone who may be using this information to self-diagnose themselves. May I recommend we add my information, but, hopefully with  this information regarding the suppression of the Immune system via steroids?  That should be sufficient warning. p.s.; I also left a comment regarding the gargling within the articles text. The problem is still the same. Best regards and I'll understand if you place the information regarding EMF therapy on the article's talk page until we find some reliable sources to help everyone understand your very clear explanation regarding suppressing vs. enhancing the immune system. I may also concede that this information should be in the main article regarding the virus... Or we could simply state alternative treatments for the virus (see main article). Any other suggestions?  Best regards... I'm off now, for the weekend with the flu. Cheers. --CyclePat (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That book has several contributors per this link here. I imagine, it is peer-reviewed by each one of them. But most importantly by this foreword here. But, then again, it's not http://www.icapediatrics.com/reference-jccp.php which actually states that it is a peer-reviewed document... but neither is the information regarding Mayo Institute if we want to get technical. --CyclePat (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Obesity
Too bad about Obesity - I think it is pretty close to FA. Please try again in a few months. :) --mav (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont quite get it..
Your ADHD delete: Is the problem format, content, concept, quality or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsmandda (talk • contribs) 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Doege-Potter syndrome
Hola,

A note to say I'll be changing your addition to DPS to a distinguish template. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Car accident" article title
Greetings, Jmh649. I've begun another try at attaining consensus to improve the title of Car accident. I see you have participated in past discussion; if you're still interested, please come participate in the new discussion. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 06:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Protandim should I or not?
Dear Dr James I have read all of your information from the blatant page and just wanted to know if you saw the new University of LSU report that just came out a few days ago on protandim you can find it at www.plosone.com write in protandim in the search box the study will come up. People are trying to get me involved in the company and I dont know what to think please help......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1alexh (talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

MCOTW
JFW | T@lk  16:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Rfc reply
Please see my response in User talk:Sportsmand --Sportsmand (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OFC
Finishing up addressing almost all the points you made...just have the last bullet to attend to. Anything else you notice to be wrong with the article? Strombollii (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, well, I can't find anything else to fix. Mind giving it a run through?  Strombollii (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you awaiting subsequent edits on my behalf to the article (i.e. something still not addressed) to pass/fail/comment on it, or are you just busy IRL? I'm afraid of coming off as "disinterested" as there hasn't been a flurry of edits on my behalf, but I'm sort of at a loss as to what more needs to be done.  Cheers! Strombollii (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Post at WP:WQA
Regarding this post: it would be helpful for reviewing parties to be able to see evidence via a link where he told another not to edit ADHD pages or to help. Thanks. Nja 247 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a suggestion to you which I suggest you review and act upon. Dot your i's and cross your t's. --Abd (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Brain ischemia
I have been following this article since I was close to review it (before you decided to do ti)... it is awaiting your decision in GAN; but after quite a long time very few improvements have been made. Why don't you close the review? Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can not promise to review it. I'll try to take a look at it, but I do not have much time these days and on the other hand I know nothing on the theme. However a quick look on the text gave me a good feeling, since precisely after reading it I believe I had quite a general idea of the disease. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc James
Please don't sign on as Doc James. There is someone else by that name, so please don't use that name. 24.7.55.22 (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That person has not really edited much. So will keep it.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it matter how little they've edited?24.7.55.22 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "'There is no space and no capital. We have users with names of greater similarity'" I don't know what you are trying to say. Please explain it more directly. 24.7.55.22 (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Paracetamol
Hi there,

I have seen that you have some interest in paracetamol article. I am looking to clean up the article e.g. giving due weight and rebuttals to the Lancet 2008 research, removing the excess of brand names cluttering the article, adding use and efficacy information that is missing. If you you fancy helping that would be great.

Cheers Lethaniol 22:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard
You might want to see and perhaps comment Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  10:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of Mediation?
Heya, Scuro has proposed another go at Mediation here. Please consider all the dialogue in that section and express your agreement or otherwise with that proposal or the other proposals listed there. Thank you. Nja 247 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
Hi, I've filed a request for arbitration at Arbitration/Requests/Case. Have named you as a party in the request; you may wish to make a statement. Durova Charge! 16:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure will do -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

adhd dicussions
Hello.

I see you have many interesting points in the ADHD Controversy. However, that whole article seems to focus only on childhood ADHD. I was wondering if you could contribute to the Adult ADHD article? Maybe you already have. The discussion section for that article offers very little information. I was diagnosed as having Adult ADHD by the Mayo Clinic Psychiatric department in 2002 and was/am prescribed methylphenidate. I am looking for information regarding other, non-stimulant based treatments (such as Straterra or Bupropion). I have recently moved to another state and am having trouble locating a local psychiatrist.

Thanks for any information you could provide.

Sincerely,

Conan Dombroski —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadConan (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
By the way the benzodiazepine article reached good article status.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom: the pluses and minuses
Having recently been a named party in an ArbCom case myself, you should be forewarned. First, there is no guarantee that ArbCom will take the case. Like the U.S. Supreme Court, ArbCom needs to be shown that a serious pattern has developed over the years in which the usual dispute mechanisms failed to "correct" the problem of disruption. Second, even if ArbCom takes the case, it is a lengthy bureaucratic process lasting anywhere from four to eight weeks. Third, based on my first-hand experience, the more analytical and dispassionate the argument the better. All the usual statistical evidence, patterns of editing, concrete examples of disruption, etc. needs to be presented in a very concise "get-to-the-point-and-show-us" way. ArbCom weighs those verifiable observations again the rebuttal from the "offender(s)" and slowly but surely (1) determine the validity and gravity of what the defendant has been accused, and (2) what "remedies" are needed. The bad news is that it’s a lot of hard archival and statistical work with no guarantee of success (indeed, sometimes it backfires). The good news is: if you effectively make the case, ArbCom comes down very hard (like an anvil) on the offender. To get a feel for how it works, I recommend reading very carefully how the Ayn Rand case progressed. There are similarities in the editing behavior problems. Good luck, J Readings (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now comes the really hard part. Short-and-to-the-point evidence. Remember: the evidence cannot exceed 1,000 words under any circumstances. Anything above that will just irritate and alienate the jury (I've seen it happen). Best to be methodical on the issue of disruptive editing (as the guidelines view it) with plenty of links that demonstrate and reinforce just that. So far, your evidence is cogently presented in my humble opinion. Unfortunately, this is a very bureaucratic process, so be prepared for a long drawn-out two or three months. Scuro is obligated to respond (and you're allowed a rejoinder) within 1,000 words. Good luck, J Readings (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ——  nix eagle email me 20:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Insult
It says what it means. I said nothing about you. I said that others could reach their own conclusions. There's a lot of crap I could suggest that you delete, but you have as much right to edit as I do. Ward3001 (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The effects of obesity on the environment
Did you think that you we're totally in the right when you decided to delete an entire section without discussion? Your reason: "Not notable."

I think that, in a time with all the "Commies are comin'" hype of the the environment, it could be considered useful information.

Expand. --GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica
It doesn't look like anything's been going on with the GA review on your side in about a month. Care to finish it? Wizardman 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All points have now been addressed. Strombollii (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems on Adult attention-deficit disorder
Hi,

Parts of your contributions to the above article, in Adult attention-deficit disorder and Adult attention-deficit disorder appear to be copy-pasting of several sentences one sentence from and have been removed. Please understand that while we welcome any contribution written in your own words, those written by others carry rights which cannot be infringed. Please ensure you review and understand WP:PLAGIARISM before editing any further.

Alternatively, should you be the author of the source material yourself, please follow the guidelines on donating copyrighted material to WikiPedia before adding such material.

Thank you for your understanding & happy editing.

Regards, --MLauba (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn. My deepest apologies. To take the image employed by Abd below, it appears the chicken and the egg were reversed. In my haste of correcting a potential infringement issue, I have clearly jumped the gun. --MLauba (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Could it be such a page?  They have many such pages. - Hordaland (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at this. Copy-pasting may be allowable if there is reason to exactly quote, for limited amounts of text, otherwise restating facts is appropriate. If quoting exactly, quotation marks and attribution are indicated. --Abd (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Twas not long ago we were blamed for copying a page, but it was they who copied us. Could well be like that. - Hordaland (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, the wiki pages are separate, copied from a much earlier version of our article, and properly attributed. The parts I removed for now, as linked above, appear clearly different though. MLauba (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This text was added, not by Jmh649 (MLauba, why did you pick him?), but by with . That was a revamping of the article. CVZ would be the one to check with on this. Figuring out where this text originated (with CVZ or with Wrongdiagnosis.com, which seems to be largely an advertising vehicle and which might have used Wikipedia content, and the page cited above might be an attempt to satisfy the licensing from Wikipeda, or not, it might be supplemental (as you seem to suggest, MLauba), and I just don't know at this point. --Abd (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have stricken the relevant parts and issue my apology for that. Could you further point me to any discussions concerning reverse copying coming from the wrongdiagnosis.com site? Very much obliged. Thanks. --MLauba (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up on the entire matter, it is now my firm conviction that, indeed, wrong diagnosis copied this section off wikipedia and a different source, and in at least two different sessions. Particularly telling is the beginning of the Treatment section - CVZ's addition contains "The cornerstone" followed by the "In adults" paragraph. WD has the exact same structure. However, the second paragraph has later been rewritten entirely to read "Treatment of adults...". This language is also present in WD, but to the very bottom of the page, as a latter addition. The entire last part of CVZ, which is quite heavily referenced, is also absent from WD - as it has been removed in a later edit.


 * Long story short, and without boring you all with the detail of my attempts at textual forensics, I was wrong, I have misread the situation entirely, and I apologize to all interested editors for implying their collective effort may be anything but their own hard researched efforts. I have learned my lesson, sorry that you all had to be the unwilling guinea pigs in this matter. --MLauba (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, you jumped to conclusions. It's easy to do. You were presented with an appearance and made some assumptions and, presumably, you won't make that mistake again. Let me say that I'm impressed. There are too many editors who would have ranted and raved about this, and then, when the truth was staring them in the face, and it was obvious that they weren't being accepted, they would have disappeared, but holding in their minds about how uncivil everyone had been in rejecting their perfectly accurate finding. This is, unfortunately, how some of us feel, we are attached to the conclusions we made, especially if we committed to them in some way. Instead, you backed up immediately, checked out what was being said to you, and went even further, to do the kind of research that I would have done if I'd had time. Yes, I knew that it would be possible to discriminate between copying in one direction and copying in the other, through our edit record, even though I couldn't find revision information on WrongDiagnosis. So, thanks, because it seems you iced it. --Abd (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
MLauba (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

HRS
Agree, needs some work. GA criteria were looser 2 years ago. Thanks for letting me know. Best regards -- Samir 05:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Cholesterol_Depletion
please revisit your last comment at Talk:Cholesterol_Depletion- Thanks Glynwiki (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mevalonate inhibition
No WP:SYN problems —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glynwiki (talk • contribs) 06:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC) I suspect you have issues with the concept that you are not sharing. A fault like drawing clinical conclusions from in-vitro evidence is easily fixed and you know that I will fix it. As soon as my paper is officially released (estimated 30th this month)and PubMed indexed you'll get the full picture and can shoot at it. An interest in preventative medicine will mean that you are fully in the picture about long-term statin medication and its success in cardiology. If you are in practice, you would also know about the need to supplement for CoQ10 and the the Golomb paper. It is more important that you join in this examination of the evidence and contribute your facts and citations in support of your opinion. I hope I can be good enough to concede when you present the evidence and its supporting citations. James - Please tell me why are you being so adversarial in demanding deletion of the entire topic? Glynwiki (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review
What's going on? Are you reviewing Emergency contraception? You created the review subpage, but didn't take responsibility for it at WP:GAN. — Jake   Wartenberg  15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. But creating that subpage changes the template at the top of the talk page to state that the article is spoken for.  It might be better to just note that on the talk page in a new section in the future.  Cheers, —  Jake   Wartenberg  18:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:GAR
Thanks for your help at GAR. I just wanted to let you know that it is unusual (though not forbidden) for nominators to close discussions, and I've left a note to that effect at WT:Good article reassessment/Earwax/1. I'd also encourage you to consult the guidelines for closing articles (click the show/hide box for advice on best practice). Thanks again for your contribution to improving the reliability of the good article standard, Geometry guy 20:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied on my talk page. Geometry guy 21:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Assume Goood Faith
Talk:Mevalonate_inhibition I have responded here.Glynwiki (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Medical GA Sweeps
Thanks for taking a look at these articles and leaving comments. I would recommend leaving a note at the Medicine WikiProject page mentioning this list to see if anyone is willing to address those issues. Usually, reviews are open for about a week, and if no progress is made, then you can delist the articles. If possible, see if you can contact the main contributors of the articles, leaving them a brief message to let them know you have some issues with the article (this tool may be helpful). If you do pass/delist the articles after the completion of the review, be sure to add your name to the running total page (or you can add it now to keep track of your open reviews). Thanks again, and if you have any questions, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * GA reviews are not too elaborate. As long as it meets the GA criteria, then it qualifies. Looking over the issues you raised, it looks like they definitely should be met to maintain a GA. I would just recommend leaving a notice in the review saying that you believe that the issues need to be addressed so the article meets the criteria, and establish some sort of deadline (don't want these reviews open for months). If you need me to send out the messages for you, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually a week is sufficient. If no progress is being made then delist the article. If an editor(s) are starting to make progress on the article, it's okay to leave it open longer if they'll address all of the issues to help it maintain a GA. It could be beneficial to also leave a message at the talk pages of the WikiProjects stating that you have placed these articles on hold. Usually more editors will jump in to help resolve the issues. If you need help with closing the reviews let me know and I'll do the formatting. Thanks again for helping out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the articles you reviewed to here. If you review anymore, or are currently reviewing others, please list them here so we can keep track. Thanks for assisting, it's great to have someone who knows the layout/guidelines of these articles to take a look at them. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GA delistings
It's great that you're sweeping the GAs: it keeps the status high quality and identifies those that need improvement. But I think you're delisting GAs even faster than they're being added. I check them every few days, and I think the number of GAs has been going down. Although they probably wouldn't pass a GA review now, with 33 and 40 references I don't really think Yellow fever and Measles urgently had to be removed. I don't want to be telling you what to do, but maybe you could pass an article for every one you delist so the number overall goes up, not down. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk  23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review for hypertension
Hi, Thank you for reviewing the article, and for the modifications you made, I am glad you took over the review as the other user stopped answering my messages suddenly, and I was stuck in the middle of the process, I am willing to continue working on the article, so please continue reviewing the article, thank you for moving the epidemiology section, and adding the signs and symptoms section for me, I ll be working on these now, thank you again :-) M aen K. A.  Talk  07:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 15 June 2009 ==


 * Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
 * News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
 * Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ward3001 (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is inappropriate. I added good faith text and reverted User:Faustian twice well he reverted me three time.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You added to the article after having made a negative remark, clearly in order to provoke other editors: .Faustian (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just showing my appreciation to the praise bestowed upon me above :-) But to be serious these images do add to the page and it seems that the majority of the community agrees with me. -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Doc, regardless of how many times Faustian reverted you, you were still edit warring. There is no special rule that you can revert as many times as you want if someone else reverts you. You made a false report about me edit warring after I reverted once. The warning I added above is entirely appropriate and even encouraged by Wikipedia to prevent additional edit warring. Ward3001 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It was two reverts. Therefore you should not have posted on my talk page.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's garbage. You post the template to avoid additional edit warring. You deserved that warning template much more than I deserved to have a false edit warring report made by you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for all your friendly comments and have a nice day.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thank you for all the amazing insights not available to anyone else, and have a nice day. Ward3001 (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
M aen K. A. Talk  15:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cancer screening
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cancer screening, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Already covered in sufficient depth in primary article. No additional sources or references added in more than a month, and the subject is sprinkled with original research in the form of unreferenced "recommendations".

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ₪ Amused Repose   Converse!  22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Civil
I would request that you attempt to be civil, and honest, and not misleading. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have an example of these issues? Is this perhaps the same misunderstanding Faustian had? Chillum  03:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, I don't care to have a debate with you on James' talk page. And it was you, not Faustian, who had the misunderstanding. Ward3001 (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then don't make accusations if you don't care to support them. Chillum  04:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility, Please
Please refrain from insults as you have done here:. Thank you,Faustian (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the whole discussion Faustian before issuing warnings. We were all discussion a hypothetical future expert who may decide not to edit Wikipedia because he/she did not get what they wanted. It was not directed at you. Chillum  03:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User Ward3001
this user is particularly pestersome on wikipedia, we should start up a community ban on him! check his history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntjemima001 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Malaria
Hey, I didn't see an edit summary for your first edit; my reversal came at the same time as your second edit. I see now that you're working on it, so I'll leave you to it. ;) Feel free to revert. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: A diff
''Here it indicated that you are a member of the APA 12 We should really continue the discuss of who does what out in the real world on the personal talk pages rather than on the discussion pages. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)''
 * I'm a member of the Catholic Church, but that does not mean I represent the Catholic Church on Wikipedia. You have claimed that editors represent APA on Wikipedia. Further, when asked whether you represent CMA, you said it was none of my business. The diff above is meaningless. And I will continue discussing this issue on the Rorschach talk page when necessary (especially if you continue bringing it up, which you did as recently as an hour or so ago) until you either retract your claims that anyone represents APA or provide a diff or other evidence that actually backs up what you have said. You see James, you're not the wikiboss who decides which issues should be addressed where or who should be exempt from backing up their claims. And neither are you the expert that you have claimed to be. That M.D. after your name may have conferred some privileges, but not the ones I have just named. Please be willing to back up what you say, or don't say it. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach test
Hi. Just to let you know that I haven't formed a opinion, or even leaning towards an opinion, about whether or not the inkblots should be in. I know it might seem otherwise from what I wrote, but that's not the case. Right now I'm trying to get the various positions straight and evaluate their validity. If it's of any interest to you, I'll probably have some ideas regarding keeping the inkblots. But I would like to see if you have anything to say regarding the points I made. Any criticism of those specific points would be helpful, or possibly any agreement with parts of them. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Last line b4 criteria   M aen K. A.  Talk  16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review for Pacemaker syndrome
Hi Doc James, thanks alot for your initial review of the article, I am willing to get it into a good article level, and hopefully with your help we can achieve that. If you are willing to continue, please check out the changes that I've made here and add any new suggestions. One more thing, can you please explain what I can do to the lead section so it meets the criteria of WP:LEAD, your help will be much appreciated. Thank you again. GiggsHammouri (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)