User talk:Doc James/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Thank you for your sensible contributions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Your patience helps me to be patient too.

This is not developing in ways which seem reasonable; but there it is -- an odd mystery. I hope that frustration will not cause you to withdraw. --Tenmei (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have send a request to ArbCom. They have said they they are still thinking about your case. Just give them a little more time. If you wish to get back to writing you can work on topics within you user space. Then once the decision hopefully goes in your favor you can place this into the main space. I am glad to hear that you are still interested in contributing to Wikipedia even after all of this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I contacted each ArbCom member who commented on the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread -- Smith, Coren, Davies, Risker, Carcharoth, SirFozzie, Hersfold; and in addition, I reached out to two others who commented on another thread on the same page -- Newyorkbrad, Shell. This modest effort engendered three vague, unhelpful responses:

1. Thanks for the note. We are close to deciding what to do here, so a little bit more patience and thanks for being so patient so far as this has indeed taken some time. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2010
2. This is being discussed. I think I'm going to stand where I am on this, but we will see how others think. SirFozzie (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2010
3. Just in case you hadn't noticed, I haven't actually commented on your request at all. Your comments were very confusing themselves and you seem to have set up a confusing mentorship system with a large number private and public mentors. In my opinion, this is not going to go well, but as I was not around for the original case, I am deferring to the judgement of Arbiters who were there for the case and can hopefully understand a bit better what you are proposing. Shell ^babelfish 00:17, 27 April 2010

I construe Shell's comment as a suggestion that I contact each ArbCom member who participated directly in Tang Dynasty. I will give this some thought.

In each "ping", I explicitly invite ArbCom to explain to you and the other identified "mentors." For redundant clarity, my words were these: "please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me." Was it necessary to underline these words?

ArbCom's core error is two-fold: (a) failure to answer direct questions from me; and (b) failure to communicate with you. WP:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship projects your role as some kind of ArbCom agents; but any evidence of constructive engagement is missing. This is an ArbCom-created stumbling block we need to acknowledge. --Tenmei (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be advised that voting has commenced on a Motion concerning your mentorship of Tenmei.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add the following link to the External links section of the page

http://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search.aspx?t=Obesity

This is a valuable source of information that many useres wil find useful

Aura99 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It is just a search for papers. Google scholar gives people the same thing. We do not usually however add links like this. See WP:ELNODoc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/Regina+runner+wins+Boston+Marathon+group/2935828/story.html

Might not hurt to add a line about Kostic's age-group win at Boston, the world's oldest (and most prestigious) marathon run.

Agree will do when I have time.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

that is great :-), I ve found this one, which is currently available under C-CA-3.0 free license, shall I upload it, or you can do it?? MaenK.A._Talk 16:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Doc, just leaving a quick note. First of all (slightly unrelated) thank you for your unbiased and level-headed advice on the article Protein allergy. It's been a bit of a labor of love working on that article over the past few weeks; sometimes the goals for the student project seemed to be a higher priority to many of the editors than the overall quality of the article by wiki standards. So thank you for that!

Now the real issue: I've made an attempt to re-open the debate on the talk page for Medicinal mushrooms; consensus was never reached, and the article continues to suffer from many of the problems it did before (e.g. excessive redundant citations and in vitro and animal studies being used as "proof" of claims). Excuse my redundancy here if you watch the page and are already aware, but I know you've contributed to the discussion before, and I'm trying to re-engage some of the interested parties and come up with solutions without going to ArbCom (which I've heard is a lengthy, involved process). Your input would be most appreciated. Thank you! Jhfortier (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I've passed the Strep article on it's GA nom. Well done, and let me know if you need additional reviews. Always happy to help.Jhfortier (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jmh649. Considering your recent improvements to this article, would you mind weighing in on this discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for your second opinion on Genetic resistance to malaria. I didn't want to be overly hard on the article, yet I saw significant problems. I appreciate your feedback. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 13:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When I mention the lack of survey articles, per WP:MEDRS, the editor said, "We have given a comprehensive account of the main contributions in the field rather than citing latecomers who write numerous unoriginal reviews." Doesn't wikipedia want the late comers who write unoriginal reviews (secondary sources)? Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 21:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:

1) Tenmei (talk · contribs) may edit Wikipedia under the guidance of his self-declared mentors (Nihonjoe (talk · contribs), Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Coppertwig (talk · contribs), Leujohn (talk · contribs), Jmh649 (talk · contribs), McDoobAU93 (talk · contribs)). The period of mentorship will last six months from the date on which this motion passes, although it may be extended with the agreement of Tenmei and one or more mentors. Tenmei is strongly encouraged to seek advice and guidance from his mentors regularly. Should they deem it necessary, Tenmei's mentors may return to the Arbitration Committee for clarification of any editing restrictions or questions with respect to the terms of mentorship. Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.

2) Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:

• Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion. (The six-month period will commence from the date on which this motion passes.)
• Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia, except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Discuss this

Thank you for sticking with me during this slow process. --Tenmei (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you don't mind answering some anonymous questions. Firstly, why do you not have a listing at [1]?

What are your sources for the statement you made at [2]?

Would you please specify the particular passages you were referring to as "activism" here. Thank you for your help with these issues. Comms50 (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Glad to be aboard! -BV BSW BV (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}}Hi there-

I had put myself in the wrong field...now just a reviewing editor.

Question: tim had instructed to tag text (the bit that looks like a citation, but has text rather than a number) and I was doing the

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Archive 9" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

on the edit page and I kept getting it to appear as a template rather than what I wanted. I've searched around to find out what I'm doing wrong, but can't seem to locate the proper instructions. Can you help? Thanks!BSW BV (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

do you mean this ^{[citation needed]} Sophie 18:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that there is something that says "inline text" so that it appears as a superscript. Somehow, mine appear as that banner you see in my first message. Can you tell what I'm doing wrong?

Thanks!BSW BV (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...let me try that!BSW BV (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

hi, my name is francy. I have recently experience dizziness whenever I try to lie down. This dizziness have cause me many untold sleepness nights. Could you give me a diagnose base on what I have told you? Your opinion will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.116.14.127.238 (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I am not licensed to provide medical advice on Wikipedia. Please see your family physician for advice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great! Thanks, ~ Ciar ~ _(Talk) 23:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed you are very active in the WP:MED project so I thought I would ask you this quick question. As I am editing the articles and adding references, they sometimes show up as duplicates in the reference list. Is there a bot that fixes this or I should I enter them differently on the edit page (rather than with ref tags) if they've been cited previously? Sorry to bother you with such a basic editing question but I've looked all through the style guides and asked others and still haven't found the answer. Thought you might know! BSW-RMH (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Immunize (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doc, How are you? I was just wondering, since you state that you are an ER doc, how often you come across instances of self-harm and whether or not your professional experience supports the information we provide in the article i.e. with respect to prevalence and gender differences etc. Of course this is original research but I'm just wondering if your professional experience backs up what we say. I think the biggest challenge in this field of research is the availability of accurate statistics and I think this is an area which probably needs improvement in the article. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi James, could you try to consistently use edit summaries and the minor tag? I don't have a great internet connection and I trust you to abide by WP:MINOR, so I'd really rather not load up the page for something like this. I noticed you made a bunch of edits over at osteoarthritis which I want to review carefully and my review will be more difficult with when the edit summaries aren't descriptive. Just to let you know, the ones that you did use are very helpful, thanks. Also, sometimes when you're making a big change it can be easier to spend a fair amount of time working in one edit. Anyway, I'm heading to bed, and hope you don't take this the wrong way since you do a lot of good bold work. II | (t - c) 09:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jmh649, This is another note to ask you please to use the edit summary slot each time, before you hit the save button, after you make changes to an article, as you did to Menopause. This is especially important when you are making major revisions. The edit summary can be very brief, and it does not take long to do, but it is necessary. That way people who consult the edit history of the article can see who did what, and when. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes will do my best. Sometimes I get interupted in the middle of editing and just hit save.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Me, too. So I've tried to train myself to write the edit summary first. I usually have some idea of what I'm going to change/add. (Hi! Long time no see.) - Hordaland (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks H. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, just a heads up that BioscienceWriters considers the heartburn review completed, but if the article is to be rewritten in another format (ie. not a disease format-but as a symptom) then they will add it back to the queue to be re-reviewed. Thanks for being so involved with the review process! It makes a for a good discussion :) BSW-RMH (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

While your efforts to improve the Anxiety article are much appreciated, I have undone your edits and replied to your entry on the article's talk page. Please explain on the talk page before proceeding with further MEDMOS-related edits to Anxiety. Thanks. Soiregistered (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, James. I have started working on the review recommendations for "Asthma". Of course you are welcome to assist. Or I'm happy to continue this without your assistance. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey,

Thanks for assessing the pinworm article. I really have to disagree with the split though (especially without any discussion!), because most of the information in the Enterobius article should now be in the pinworm infection article as well. Eg. distribution of the pinworm is equivalent to distribution of enterobiasis. Morphology is necessary to describe what pinworms look like when you have enterobiasis. The life cycle is necessary for understanding the infection. And of course transmission is relevant in both articles. --Snoopydawg (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You want to include it, find a way to put it inline with Wikipedia:IG#Image_galleries or don't include it. It actually doesn't really matter what it is called whether it is called gallery, other images, or anything else. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. ....if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. please be more careful in reading the actual policy before reverting. 2 images is hardly sufficient to make a gallery out of anyway.--Crossmr (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter much. These images fit under the title of physical signs of gout. It did not need a title as it was self explanatory due to the heading it was under. I was mainly returning the image of the gouty toe that was removed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the gestational diabetes is different that diabetes, and those are the new values used and were provided in the last conference i attended on May12th if you have any references please let me know

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibkhayyat (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your ref, you are absolutely right. I will find the conference papers, thank you for your feedback

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibkhayyat (talk • contribs) 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome is actually the official name per NIH/NIDDK. See [3] and[4] and many other pages. Google "CP/CPPS". TickleMeister (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry yes I meant to removed that comment.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One more:[5]. I did not know where to best post this. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes there are alot of these images. A sham really.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You copied the table into Polyp... you should've edited Polyp (medicine). Fences&Windows 02:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks yes. Was called away in the middle.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any large studies to substantiate the claims that diet can sometimes essentially cure diabetes. I find it in a couple books by doctors. The studies in the Economist don't make the connection directly. I did find "type 3 diabetes" (Alzheimer’s) and other interesting snippets we could add the main page. Sorry.Zinbarg (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I previously edited this article and included a section regarding nasal sprays. You subsequently removed my section regarding natural nasal sprays and kindly put forward pubmed as a possible source for substantiation. Unfortunately there is no information currently available regarding natural nasal sprays. The only information currently available are countless articles, TV shows and some clinical studies. Alternatively there are plenty of medical journals substantiating the effectiveness of the ingredients in natural nasal sprays such as capsaicin and tea tree. I am keen to have natural nasal sprays included in the article under the heading conservative measures and would appreciate your guidance. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Libby (Libbee96 (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks James, you are a true gentleman.

Kind regards

libby (Libbee96 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

Hey Doc:

Per your request, I read through this article and did some minor copy editing (see the Project Medicine Talk Page).

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

... for welcoming me yet again, and for the tips. One of these days I will get around to behaving appropriately, but it probably won't be until after my wife divorces me for spending too much time on this thing. Talk to you later.

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for just thinking of me as a possible admin, it is an honor. Nevertheless I consider myself a content-editor: I enjoy a lot editing articles, but I barely follow a 100 articles, I have never used a bot, I still do not know how to rename articles, I try to evade from controversial articles... so I do not think I would really make use of the tools being an admin provides. I prefer to stay a bare user and concentrate in improving content. But again... many thanks. I will take a closer look to what means to be an admin and if I change my mind I will let you know. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me about becoming an admin. I have replied on my talk page. What about you being nominated for adminship? I could nominate you if you like. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I do spend a little bit of time editing :-) May be once the current TM Arbcom closes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I shall talk to you when it closes and draft up a nomination, I will show you the draft before I submit it. :) By the way Xeno, who I think you will remember, is running for bureaucrat, on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship if you want to vote for him. He is a decent person I think.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes have already voted with my support. He and I spend some time together editing the Rorschach test page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, do you know someone that could fix this new section soon? on the Main page at the current DYK section. Thanks.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Answer on my talk page.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Answered.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just posted a new comment in talk page precisely stating that it is OR.--Garrondo (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Juansempere has also posted an interesting comment on a ref that says that Zamboni developed his own equipment. Sounds really strange, but I am no doctor. Could be a mistake in the reference? (journalist article). Thoughts would be welcome.--Garrondo (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source?--Garrondo (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not need the medical post article. If it was you who added it I am sure it is there. However, can the medical post be considered a reliable source? We have a quite critique review (Khan) and I do not rembember it saying anything about Zamboni building his own equipment, nor the original article from Zamboni, and I am sure that if it was true Khan would have used it as ammo...--Garrondo (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
• From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
• User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
• Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

This article has been marked as under review for 37 days and the last edits to the GA review were on 5/11/2010. Seems like it should be either passed or failed at this point. WTF? (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks I agree. I think it was close.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear James,

I have been searching for a good image of a DVT to include in a booklet I am editing in the UK on achieving national targets for VTE prevention. The booklet is entitled 'Venous thromboembolism Prevention - A guide for delivering the CQUIN goal' and will be published by the King's Thrombosis Centre (www.kingsthrombosiscentre.org.uk), Please may I ask you if you would allow us to use your image? We would be more than happy to acknowledge its source and to pay a fee for its use. Thanks for considering, Aidan. Aidan McManus, PhD Email: aidan@mmrxcommunications.com82.44.80.221 (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to us the image. All I ask is that you acknowledge both myself and Wikipedia. The image is free however if you feel inclined to donate to the Wikimedia foundation which supports what we do here that would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in my study of the prevalence of ghostwriting.

You are right, of course, that the low response rate is a huge limitation. I certainly wouldn't claim that the study gives an accurate estimate of the prevalence of ghostwriting. I suspect it underestimates it, possibly by a large margin. However, I stand by my assertion that it gives reliable evidence of a decrease in prevalence. The methods were identical in both the 2005 and 2008 versions of the survey, so any response bias or indeed other biases are likely to be similar both times. AdamJacobs (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your passive oversight may be needed at Talk:Shinto shrine#Revert. I am posting an alert on the talk pages of the others in the mentorship group; however, I anticipate that none of you will need to intervene.

If something does develop, I agreed in months ago to be guided by Leujohn's active mentoring lead.

The contributions history here + an old dispute thread at Talk:Iwashimizu Hachiman-gū#Top three shrines cause me to guess that this is precisely the kind of problem which calls for a heads-up. For more background, see also here

In response to an early-2009 dispute, I created Hakozaki Shrine, Usa Shrine and Modern system of ranked Shinto Shrines. The research which went into developing these articles informs my reaction to an otherwise trivial edit here. The small change suggests that this may have something to do with pre-1947 State Shinto ranking.

From 1871 to 1947, the Kanpei-sha (官幣社) identified a hierarchy of government-supported shrines most closely associated with the Imperial family. Included in the highest ranks were these three:

• Usa Shrine, Usa, Ōita —Kanpei-taisha (官幣大社)
• Iwashimizu Shrine, Yawata, Kyoto— Kanpei-taisha, 3rd among the most highly ranked Imperial shrines
• Hakozaki Shrine, Fukuoka— Kanpei-taisha

Before 1947, the mid-range of ranked, nationally significant shrines or Kokuhei Chūsha (国幣中社) included Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū at Kamakura, Kanagawa.

Maybe nothing will come of this, but I will invite Oda Mari and Urashimataro to watchlist Shinto Shrine. We'll see.

Thank you for your investment of time and concern. --Tenmei (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch! Although we're focused for now on a small number of public policy professors who've been recruited to incorporate Wikipedia into their courses, I think one of our main goals is to develop more general assignments and guidelines that will work well for large groups of people with limited Wikipedia experience. We're basically trying to find out what works and what doesn't. A class of 256 med students would really stretch things, in terms of the logistics of an assignment; very exciting! We should chat some time, either online or on the phone, about what you do with your residents, and how a huge class of med students might work.--Ragesoss (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes give me a couple months more to work on the medical school thing. WRT residents I am still trying to figure out how to get them involved. As I said I only get a couple a month. I have attempted to get my collegues involved but that is still a work in progess. I will be presenting again to the group in a month or two.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You were former involved in a discussion in Talk:Abortion#More reliable references so, if you're still interested about the outcome of that discussion, I ask you to express your opinion in Talk:Abortion#Assessing the current agreement status--Nutriveg (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As you have commented before further proposals were made, and if you're still interested in the outcome of that discussion, I would ask you to express your opinion on those as well. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In view editing activities of many relevant articles I'd like to invite you to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability Roger (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Have responded on the project page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the dispute at Talk:Abortion. The thread is Disruptive editing by Nutriveg. Thank you. I mentioned your that you kindly provided six sources. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Habba syndrome, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habba syndrome. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gz33 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are the one rewriting the Gulf War Syndrome (now, Gulf War Illness) page - depleted uranium is no longer thought to have anything to do with GWI - suggest that you watch the video from the DU forum at the Minnesota Dept of Veteran Affairs - you might like to start with the Q&A if you are short of time - then go on to the Key Research Findings - the entire video is 1:19 - Q&A is a little over 30 minutes - (you might like to start about 5 minutes in) and the Key Research Findings is over 40 minutes. All of the links come up when you click on either link, which takes you directly into the video.

http://www.mdva.state.mn.us/du/video/DUQandA.htm

http://www.mdva.state.mn.us/du/video/DUKeyResearchFindings.htm

Roger DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are the one rewriting the Gulf War Syndrome (now, Gulf War Illness) page - depleted uranium is no longer thought to have anything to do with GWI - suggest that you watch the video from the DU forum at the Minnesota Dept of Veteran Affairs - you might like to start with the Q&A if you are short of time - then go on to the Key Research Findings - the entire video is 1:19 - Q&A is a little over 30 minutes - (you might like to start about 5 minutes in) and the Key Research Findings is over 40 minutes. All of the links come up when you click on either link, which takes you directly into the video.

http://www.mdva.state.mn.us/du/video/DUQandA.htm

http://www.mdva.state.mn.us/du/video/DUKeyResearchFindings.htm

Roger DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I go with text based publications for the reasons discussed in the book Amusing ourselves to death. Would need to see peer reviewed publications. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Habba syndrome, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)