User talk:Doc James/Archive 7

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy
Hey Doc, if you have any spare time, there is a rather difficult dispute to resolve on the Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy article, maybe you could watch list it and follow it and pass your thoughts? It would be much appreciated. I offered to help after seeing a request for help on wiki med thinking that it would be an easy dispute to resolve but it is not. :-(-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Have added my two cents. Not much interested beyond the lead.  The research base is poor. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The research base is poor, very true and that's the point I've been trying to convince two other editors of for months now. There's actually lots and lots of sources that indicate this, explicitly, but Hillinpa and Riverpa are convinced that this is unwarranted criticism and that there should be more emphasis on the benefits and lower risks of bioidentical hormones.  It has been a very aggravating time.  Pretty much every experienced editor who has been willing to comment has said the same thing, but LiteratureGeek is the only other editor willing to stick around and try to convey this point.  It shouldn't be a difficult one to make and certainly isn't difficult to demonstrate via sources, but there's still a fuss being kicked up.  The issues are wikipedia-specific rather than research-based.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is often hard to pull people into controversial discussions. Looks like the lead is mostly correct.   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take this as a "...and I'm one of those people not getting pulled in"
 * I see it as uncontroversial within the medical community, which is part of my frustration. I ended up rewriting the lead a fair bit this morning, and if you felt like re-reading it I would welcome the critique.  But if you're not interested, no worries - LiteratureGeek has been kindly providing opinions and there are sufficient sources speaking with one voice that eventually it should be settled using them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to be honest, I am just in it for the pie you are sending me when the dispute is resolved. :-) Are you not offering the Doc pie? Am I special? ;-)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I must say I have been involved in my fair share of controversy and am not one to shy away :-) Still have legal action pending from the Rorschach test.  My lawyer advises me to be careful.  Will take a look. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah WLU you will have to bake him pie and cake to get him involved now LOL. Joking aside, don't feel any pressure at all Doc to become involved in an article which could effect you legally. It is not hostile like some of the other controversial articles, just an entrenched content dispute. I should be able to handle it as a mediator of sorts on my own.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks LG. It looks like you two have it under control.  Do not worry of the legal stuff.  I still live in the free world last time I checked. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm...either I deceived you with a thin tissue of lies LG, or I wasn't clear - mailing a pie is certainly out of the question. Damned postal workers keep eating them.  I can however, send you a recipe which will ensure you never need to buy a pie crust again.  I have an excellent pie crust recipe.  Much easier to mail...  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 04:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh darn those postal workers, a recipe it will have to be then! :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis
LHvU screwed up big-time with the block of Kenosis but his pride won't allow him to admit it. There's really nothing that can be done because the rules onn "wheel warring" give a first-mover advantage. That sucks, but so goes Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Wikipedia ability to deal properly with controversial topic is yet unproven. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

dead link citation
Is it wrong to remove a broken link? 174.21.24.175 (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One should tag it first to give people time to fix it with  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation project
Hi there, I've started a list of the articles we should aim to include in the first wave of this project. We are aiming to start off by transferring about 100-200 articles into about several developing world language Wikipedias. It will hopefully expand after that. I've started a list here User:TimVickers/Article list. Please add articles that you think will be useful, and of reasonable quality. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society Citation
Hello, thanks for adding that citation to Sedentary lifestyle (I have kind of unofficially adopted that article over the past couple weeks and am working to improve it). Thank you for the citation as well. I am planning to create a section on consequences that are preventable by avoiding a sedentary lifestyle. One quick thing though if you are citing a scientific journal it's better to use the Template:Cite journal which is a scientific journal citation instead of the web site which is more mainly used for web citations. For a list of all the available citation templates please see. Citation templates. Also don't worry about the one you posted I'll go ahead and alter it to cite journal. Thanks! Good editing. SirGrant (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah yeah actually when I was changing I noticed it only came out 2 days ago which would explain why it isn't on pubmed yet. SirGrant (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Clarince63 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Abdominal aortic aneurysm
Jmh649 wrote: "This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Abdominal aortic aneurysm, you will be blocked from editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)"

If you were a REAL medical professional, then you would know that WOMEN get AAA screenings, as my mother did the other day! My "disruptive edit" was to reflect that fact! Get a bloody grip! 98.119.11.214 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem was that this is not what the reference says. Your personal life experience is not verifiable.  Cheers.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind offer
But, as I wrote Will a few weeks ago, I do not wish to correspond with other Wiki editors offline. Fladrif (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR COMMENT
James, I have placed a request for comment on the talk page of the PTSD article - here. If you have a chance, your input might be especially useful. Thanks! TomCloyd (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Contested
The move page says that if I have the capability to move the page and once it is not a "contested issue" I do not have to request permission. I didn't think it was contested but if you are contesting it I'll withdraw the move and request permission. Rajrajmarley (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Who in the world are you to allow yourself to put my link down? It is relevant and you shouldn't do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindu5673 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:EL for instructions.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your willingness to participate in a mentorship group. Please replace your username with your signature (four tildes ~ ) in the list of  "active mentors" at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts. This is necessary step in a constructive direction.


 * You may find that what I'm asking for is probably less than you imagine in the short term, or perhaps more than you anticipate in the long term. --Tenmei (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbaric medicine
James, can you confirm that "Diabetically derived illness, such as diabetic foot, diabetic retinopathy, diabetic nephropathy" actually "are approved (for reimbursement) uses of hyperbaric oxygen therapy as defined by the UHMS Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Committee"? I don't have access to the quoted source – – at present, and I thought I remembered that those conditions were placed in the second list for a reason. --RexxS (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that diabetic foot is an indication for HBOT. The point is that the list you moved it to is a list of "approved (for reimbursement) uses of hyperbaric oxygen therapy as defined by the UHMS Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Committee". I wanted to check that it actually is defined as approved for reimbursement by UHMS, per the source used in the article. We shouldn't be adding to that list unless it meets that exact criterion. The list was constructed precisely in that way to stop fringe uses (like autism) from being added to it. --RexxS (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, James. I'm pretty sure Gene Hobbs will have access to the source. I'll pester him to check out the entire first list when he has time to spare. I would expect all of those conditions to be included, but I'd rather be certain. If we ever relax the inclusion criterion for indications that ought to be in the source but are not, we'll allow all the fringe conditions to get in on the back of them. --RexxS (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fever
Hi Doc James,

I've only got a few seconds, but much of what you've done at Fever needs to be reviewed with a source in hand that covers the theoretical aspects. "How we temporarily code this temperature in the emergency room, when we still don't know what's actually going on" isn't what we're writing about here: 41C is only hyperpyrexia if 41C is caused by a fever response (neurological action). If you get 41C by cooking the person, then it's not -- by definition -- hyperpyrexia (or, by definition, a fever). (Speaking of cooking, dinner's going to burn if I don't get away from this desk.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

AIDS - Preventing strategies
Hi, after reading the study, your're right. But whats behind "Prevention strategies" in this sentence: Prevention strategies, are well-known in developed countries, but epidemiological and behavioral studies in Europe and North America suggest that a substantial minority of young people continue to engage in high-risk practices despite HIV/AIDS knowledge, underestimating their own risk of becoming infected with HIV.? Which prevention strategies? Always use condoms? Would be just one "strategy". (Abstinence, be faithful, use a condom would be another..., but not in the study.) Any idea? Thanks. Cyrus Grisham (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

ACLS
I was wondering whether the images in question were free use or not, thank you for clarifying. I'll take them down straight away, just to avoid any trouble of sorts. I concur, October would be an excellent time to update it - I would be happy to help when the time comes, so feel free to email me nearer the time, if you need a hand. And I will continue to contribute to Wikiproject:Emergency Medicine / Medicine when I can. Thanks Again for the heads up --FinalCoyote (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

hey
hey......i'm edited the sections on UC and Crohn's ......why did u delete them ?.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rav chandni (talk • contribs) 10:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos
Thank you so much for uploading those photos, and your continued help with dermatology-related content. With regard to the actual images, the dermatitis and psoriasis photos look ok. With regard to the erythema multiforme photos, I am not seeing the classic target lesions I would expect with EM. Target lesions are characterized by three zones, (1) a central dark zone or blister, (2) a middle pale, edematous zone, and (3) an outer erythematous rim. File:Target lesion 1.jpg, File:Target lesion 2.jpg, and File:Target lesion 3.jpg are examples of targetoid lesions (not the best quality images, I admit, but you can see the zones). However, you know the patient and images the best, so if you think it's EM, by all means use it. Thanks again! ---kilbad (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

TM
You mistake my edit. I removed one of the sentences listing the nonsignificant HE analyses because I didn't think they needed to be listed twice in the same paragraph, in other words I removed one of the citations to the HE analyses as being redundant. If you'd prefer to replace the direct quote and remove the paraphrase, I have no objection, but they shouldn't both be in there.

The other sentence I removed didn't accurately reflect the subanalysis (the result of the subanalysis was nonsignificant) so I took it out. Will explain further on the article talk. Woonpton (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what the problem is. If they are really referring to the HE analyses, as the context implies, then they've misrepresented their own research in the summary, since none of the subanalyses in the HE meta-analyses were significant. There was a subanalysis in a different meta-analysis (TM vs NT) but that one went the other direction: the meta-analysis was nonsignificant but when they dropped out the short term trial and did the analysis only on the two longer term studies, then there was a significant effect, but only for DBP, not SBP.  So whichever analysis they meant, the statement in the article, whether a direct quote or not, is inaccurate with respect to the actual analysis.  I agree, the PMR thing looks weird stuck on the end there.  I take it you would prefer to just reinstate the whole quoted paragraph from the results summary. Go ahead.  While I feel helpless to fix most of what's wrong with these articles, I felt fine about removing an inaccuracy, but if the inaccuracy is a direct quote from the researchers, then I guess there's nothing I can do.  I would guess, from reading both the abstract and this research summary, that the abstracts and summaries weren't written by the researchers themselves but by someone less familiar with the data (as a researcher who has done work for the federal government, this doesn't surprise me). Woonpton (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

self harm
Self Harm might make DSM V the only problem is that DSM wants to refer to it as self injury not self harm. This could make things interesting.DSM5 page proposal to include self injury --Guerillero &#124; My Talk 02:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks have commented on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

hey
hey my name is raphia and i wanted to have my own wikipedia please can you tell me what to do if you can email me at raphia125@live.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.215.246 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry not sure. I think Wikia offers Wikis. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests 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—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, –MuZemike 19:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sweeps
Yo, Doc. About the articles you are reviewing on at the Sweeps, when are you gonna finish your GARs? I'm not trying to rush you or anything, but you had those reviews up for a while. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Doc, I added my opinion on Good Samaritan law and I hope it can help with the reassessment. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Doc, I just want to let you know that User:Jclemens wants to know why you delisted Good Samaritan law at the GAR. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Chronic pelvic pain
Hi Doc, you deleted the wiki med banner with this edit. Did you mean to do that? I was going to add it back but thought that I would check with you first. Looks like the TM arbcom is going to be accepted, good luck.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you for the heads up
My name is Michele and in 2002 my husband who said he was going to quit drinking started putting vodka in his odell cans he would have me get him. For years his legs were always blochy pink and white. Dr always told him it was ok. then the day before he passed he had pain in his right back just around the waist and was sick. but he refused to go in said he would beging of the next week. on sunday morning I found him still alive outside passed out. he was a smoker and he did it outside. so I woke him up and went back into the house when he finally came in he was like a zombie but i will never forget the look in his eyes like he new this was it. so he proceeded to the living room laid down with a blank over him and the new puppy on his chest and fell asleep watching the packers. to be honest i didnt really he was drunk even though he had gotten in that zombie state before. I did know something was wrong so I called his step-mom a nurse and she had to yell at me first before checking on him. in that 15 min he had a massive corinary. we pulled him to the floor and started cpr and I called the paramedics. they shocked him 18 times in the house it would go back to sinus the right back to v-tac they kept shocking him to the er prob another 20 times they said and 2 hrs later they finally pronounced him gone. His blood aclohol was 0.47 atreatic and 0.37 ventious.

I just want people to know alcohol can kill you several differant ways not just car accidents and surrossous of the liver ( I know I spelled that wrong sorry).

That is it. I really have been doing a lot of thinking about this and I just dont know where to start. Everyone has heard alcohol is a killer but they always think ya when I am old and gray so who cares. 38 is not old and gray. Got any ideas, Doc

Thanks for listening!

MicheleMichelegolladay 06:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelegolladay (talk • contribs)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
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/Transcendental Meditation movement/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/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom process
Is this something you need to know? Your name is included in a new posting at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks Noticeboard#Discussion/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Tang Dynasty? As for what happens next, we'll see? --Tenmei (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As you know, ArbCom remedies in Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty implied a multi-step process; however, no protocols for confirming mentors were suggested. In the absence of specifics, User:Mattisse/Plan was taken as an arguably relevant procedural model.  Accordingly, a draft plan and list of mentors was e-mailed to each ArbCom member and redundantly posted at WP:AC/CN.  This seems not to have worked.
 * I have now sought "approval" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Tang Dynasty. This message is necessary because the standard template requires me to confirm notifying you. --Tenmei (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding a comment. I didn't think to ask for a supporting word.  Fortunately, ArbCom member Coren suggested, "It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made ...." I will follow-up with an e-mail to each of the others; and I'll explain that John Carter has been inexplicably off-wiki since late December. --Tenmei (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The work!
Hey James, hope you're well. I'm impressed at the amount of work you're putting in at the moment. I've had a dry spell and am now working on hepatic encephalopathy and long QT syndrome. The more I look at our WikiProject the more I feel that we still need more editors who are prepared to take an article to high quality level. What amazes me even more is how useful it can be professionally to do this - I'm still using my reading on diabetic ketoacidosis, having already co-written a hospital guideline and done 4 tutorials for nursing staff!

I see that myocardial infarction is crying for help. Sadly we haven't had a Wikipedia cardiologist for ages, and I personally find the topic daunting. Are you planning further work, and can I be of any assistance? I've also just dumped some sources on the pneumothorax page, a topic that I might still attack in the next few weeks; surely something on your ER radar? JFW | T@lk  12:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theories
Hello. I thank you for your comment on this section. I was wondering if you would like to update it in the light of the following post. My reasons for asking this are: I thank you in anticipation should you wish to comment on the project talk page. No need to respond here. -- TerryE (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) All the editors involved with this issue would agree with everything that you say.  So whilst your comment is appropriate, it unfortunately doesn't help us discriminate on our views.
 * 2) This relates to an article about an institute which has been founded to carry out mainstream research etc. and that has already published (with the NCI and Cleveland Clinic) a major paper in Science on an aspect of XMRV research.  XMRV is still a new field and all the related papers focus on presenting primary research.  (I do know where some authors make secondary comments on earlier papers, but do so to set their own primary research in context).  Also many of the finding are inconsistent (one paper finds XMRV in prostate tumours; another fails to find ...)  So if we are going to exclude all primary research then we therefore need to remove all articles relating to XRMV.  If we decide to cover XMRV then we have to accept that we will need to include some limited and balanced synopsis of the relevant Pubmed cited primary papers appropriate to the scope of their content.
 * 3) The original poster asserts that a set of editors are promoting fringe ideas and has therefore made significant edits to an article against the consensus citing this discussion as one of her justifications.  My point on the discussion topic was that  this was the article version that includes the worst of these alleged fringe theories.  What would really help us here would be if you gave this a scan and provided some specific comments on where you feel that any content falls within the scope of the Fringe Theories project.  (My view is that it is far too wordy but most of this content was introduced by the editor who raised this issue, and we didn't want to remove this content unilaterally.)


 * Okay will clarify over the next few days.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. What we have is a disagreement between one editor (Keepcalmandcarryon) and the remaining editors on this page, because we are simply trying to prevent the creation of content which fails Wikipedia's verifiability and other policies.  She is very difficult to work with because if you ask her to respond to specific matters of content (e.g. You have used the phrase X, the RS doesn't contain this.  Can you explain how you derived this wording?), she will either ignore the Q or go off on some tangent rather than answer it directly.


 * Her third bullet in the Fringe notice is actually a typical example. The wording that she had in the article was "Judy Mikovits, serves as WPI's scientific director. Mikovits ... was working as a bartender when a patron introduced her to the Whittemores through a mutual friend."  First, this is an article about WPI and not Mikovits.  Second, we pointed out that this was a questionable interpretation of the NYT source and perhaps what was more relevant to mention was her 22 years at NCI, four as a CSO for the biotech, her wide range of (42 Pubmed) articles in areas related to this research.  She refused to validate this, restoring this edit about 4 times as other editors undid it for stated reasons.  I did some checking and (i) Mikovits was a member of a yacht club and an elected junior commodore (official) where the bar was run by its members. (ii) that she was introduced to the Whittemores by an ex-colleague who invited both to an HHV-6 conference to do this.  10,000 words of discussion later and she still won't let this drop because an anecdote paraphrased from the NYT takes precedent over PDFs containing minutes from the yachtclub website, etc.  (We're not proposing to quote then on WP, just using them as a factual sanity check on the woosle-worded NYT anecdote).


 * Another recent example on the XMRV article is where I added the National Cancer Institute and Cleveland Clinic as co-contributors to a paper -- which she then removed for the reason that the NCI and Cleveland Clinic hadn't been mentioned in the news coverage of the paper! See the 1,100 words on this one Main article reference to WPI.


 * Her main assertion is that all of the other editors are a "CFS cabal" working on the WPI (and XMRV ...) articles promoting fringe theories on autism, MS and that CFS might have viral origin. She has already cited your previous response  as a justification for continuing her technique of mass edits and reversions.  If I describe what I think of her then she will file an Administrator Notice against me tomorrow as she monitors all my posts, but let me just say that I have found a large percentage of her content on these pages to prove unsound.   I am not asking you to criticise her, but what I was hoping was that you would look that the version of the article that was the subject of her mass reverts  to remove this fringe material (remembering that this also contains a lot of waffly flim-flam that she introduced) and simply comment on whether this version supports her assertion what we are promoting fringe theories on autism, MS and CFS, otherwise she will continue to cite you as a supporting her editing stance.  I accept that you might agree with her.  Thanks Terry TerryE (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My interest and expertise is in medicine. Thus do not have anything further to add to the Whittemore Peterson Institute question.
 * Chronic fatigue syndrome and Autism are exceedingly controversial so it is not surprising that the controversy continues on Wikipedia. On a brief look at the edit histories of these two pages I do not see any edits by either you or her.
 * So I take it the main issue is at XMRV? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for your comments on the XMRV page :-) I have been involved with the CFS pages and the IOLs / ocular related ones in the past at a low level, really triggered by my personal interest in CFS (a had to take early retirement at 55 because of it), and because I had to have IOLs fitted a few  years back because of cataracts.  I believe that a layperson should only work on WP:MEDRS with care so most of my involvement has been working on the talk pages and only editing articles with agreement.  I am a little more comfortable with virology related articles since I've been studying this as a hobby for over two years and am now far beyond the expertise of my GP, for example, and I do read and understand the relevant research papers.

I was a little bemused by your comment that "The XMRV virus is currently barely notable." I just wanted gently to suggest an alternative perspective but given all the current passion on the XMRV talk page, I thought it better done here 1-1. There are alternative criteria for notability. Yes, one is the scientific paper count, but there are others. I find the parallels and contrasts between CFS and AIDS very interesting. The Gallo and Montagnier papers published in Science in 1983 were similarly controversial and it took quite some time for the proposition of a retroviral causal hypothesis for AIDS to be accepted as the mainstream, and even now there are still denialists. Were these papers barely notable? Today (sadly only in the first world) there are effective managements / treatments for HIV, and most who are diagnosed HIV-positive can live normal health lives if they follow their programs. The CFS patient population is many times larger than that of the HIV-positive population, and these people can't live a normal life. There are no treatments offered; there is no material research being funded by the various medical councils. We are a forgotten community of sufferers who live wretched lives. So the existence of a third active retrovirus that might be in a few percent of the population is notable; the possible association with CFS is notable.

What has changed in the last 25 years is our analytic technologies (e.g. the cost of sequencing a 8kbp viral genome) and the WPI/NCI/Cleveland teams have now got a pretty complete phylogenetic analysis of over 130 XMRV isolates from prostate cancer and CFS patients. Of course this hasn't been PubMed published so it is far to soon to mention any such research details in any Wikipedia articles, and when we do we need to make sure that we are sticking strictly to WP:V, avoiding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. But people who state that 2 studies have now "disproved" the initial findings don't understand the scientific method. If you repeat an experiment exactly and get contradictory results then this casts doubts over the initial study; two repetitions and you have grave doubts; but two studies which use a different process and fail to detect something, well let me use an analogy: If you put three teams looking for needles in haystacks and one team finds needles, and two don't using different search techniques then the reason might be down to their search technique (and of course the first team might have needles stuck to their clothes :LoL: ).

What is very clear from the recent CROI is that there is still a lot of confusion in this field. Researchers still have a long way to go to agree on effective techniques for identifying retroviruses in their provirus phase. I expect that the science will tip one way or the other in the next six months and one POV will be proved wrong. So when it comes to MEDRS reporting, I agree that we need to be very cautious in the meantime. However, as to the notability of this research there is probably millions of CFS sufferers in the 1st world and perhaps a quarter are tracking this very closely.

I like your photo, BTW. It's nice to see someone how is proud to identify himself and his contribution. -- TerryE (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I should have been clearer :-) Well the virus I agree is notable the association between the virus and CFS is barely notable / verifiable. By this I mean that all we have is four pubmed citation and no review articles.   I am sure that this will changed with further research.  HIV too was once in a position like this.  WRT the association all we can say right now is that it is tentative.  We could say that two further studies using different methods failed to confirm the results of the first thus calling it into question.  Not sure I that helps.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that we both have pretty similar views on interpretation of the MEDRS rules. This isn't about changing any articles, and I wasn't expecting to say any more than you have said.  I was just trying to give you an understanding of why some of the passion exists in these discussions; that's all.  Most of the guys that post on this are CFS sufferers (but still want to play by the rules), the dissenting editor has a similar interest in (and perspective of) HIV, but seems to treat CFS as = psychologically damaged  / fraud. Anyway, thanks for the kind response. Maybe we'll bump into each other again on future edits. -- TerryE (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help. have extensive knowledge of the subject but limited knowledge of wiki editing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.161.248 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikimedia Canada
Right now our focus is working on Toronto's bid for Wikimania 2011. If you are interested, please feel free and pitch in by adding info. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How mentoring will work?
As you know, Roger Davies seeks more information from the mentors about how mentoring will work.

I hope these words will help "prime" the pump. I believe that what can be done in pre-planning has been accomplished. We will be figuring it out together as the future unfolds. A restatement is straightforward:
 * An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of Leujohn in Hong Kong.
 * Fasten in Germany suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an experiment derived from salutary premises which I posted at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unanticipated Consequences, especially the words of a famous German:
 * We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. &mdash; Albert Einstein

In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed; however, a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change. This is useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.

The Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In resolving these seeming contradictions, the mentors' points-of-view are essential. Together we will discover otherwise unrecognized alternatives.

In the context of this specific issue, Xavexgoem has agreed to be a non-public mentor. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty encompassed User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly. Xavexgoem's experience in mediation will help remedy an arguable deficit in the composition of our small group. Core policies are the tools at hand; and Xavexgoem agreed to help connect the dots in hopes that it could benefit more than me.

Does this help you make better guesses about how mentorship will work? --Tenmei (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)