Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Short Course Immune Induction Therapy (SCIIT)

Hi Jmh649,

As the author of the wiki article entitled SCIIT, I recently noticed that it was deleted and that the reason for deletion was that SCIIT wasn't a medically verifiable concept. If I could provide a review article from an credible scientific journal, and one which employs the term SCIIT, or reference poster/presentation abstracts from a transplant immunology conference, would that be sufficient to get verify the concept and get the page back up? The article is linked below.

Thanks.

Tractatus Philosophicus (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/mabs/article/13601/

The closest I see is short course immune induction agents. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I see it now. This paper is indexed at pubmed PMID 20935511. So do we have a ref that defines SCIIT? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

SCIIT page

From the latter half of the article in the section titled "Monoclonal Antibody Therapy in T Cell Mediated Autoimmune Diseases"

"In animal models, short course immune induction therapy (SCIIT) with mAbs against murine αβ T-cell receptor (TCR) or CD3 is capable of preventing diabetes development and is effective..."

"Clinical trials using SCIIT in T1D patients have also shown promise, with humanized anti-CD3 resulting in reduced insulin requirements, in some cases lasting many years."

"In contrast, in indications in which short course immune induction therapy has been shown to be significantly advantageous, e.g., T1D or MS, the rapid clearance of non-human antibodies may prove to be a beneficial feature."

Tractatus Philosophicus (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

SCIIT Page

I haven't found one in the literature as explicitly as I've defined it. I could reference an oral presentation at a transplant conference, but that would be pointless. The definition that I used in the introduction of the SCIIT article was a general one that encompassed the mechanisms induced by the therapeutic use of antibodies for treatment of T-cell mediated pathologies (i.e. transplant rejection, autoimmunity, etc.) A short course of biological agents (mostly antibodies) used to target or block signals required for T cell activation, function, and survival. Essentially its a way of inducing operational tolerance. I do see your point however. But if you ask 5 immunobiologist what tolerance is, I'm sure you'd get at least 2-3 different answers. Would you have any ideas of your own? Any advice on making article more acceptable? I welcome your suggestions.

Thanks for your consideration.

Tractatus Philosophicus (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Will look into it. Based on the ref you provided this concept may have crossed the notability boundary. A textbook or journal definition would be helpful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Seed

Hello, I see that you deleted my posting to the requested articles. I was wondering why I can't get a second opinion and see if someone else would look at the subject and see if they think it is notable? You say Pre-Seed is just a Hydroxyethylcellulose based lubricant. It says in the KY Jelly article that it is a hydroxyethylcellulose based lubricant, yet it has it's own article. Why not have the generic name for that? Pre-Seed may not be as well known as KY Jelly or Astroglide, but it is not intended for the same use. It is designed to be fertility friendly, and it is the only lubricant that is safe for trying to conceive. It has been noted in numerous studies, as well as best selling fertility books and is sold all over the world. There are many articles on Wikipedia that reference Toni Weschler's book "Taking Charge of Your Fertility", and in that book Pre-Seed is recommended as the vaginal moisturizer to use. So in the fertility world, it is a notable subject. Why can't I put a post in the requested articles section and get a second opinion? Darb8033 (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You can ask over at WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing the structure of a sub talk page after it has been referred to.

There is a guideline that says that we should not change a comment after someone responded to it. The spirit of that guideline suggests that you should not change the structure of a sub talk page after several references were made to it. In this particular case, the effect was not negligible since there was many references to a section and you moved an entire different section into it. Moreover, in doing so, you removed an important distinction between the definitions of a term in dictionaries and encyclopedia and the uses of the term in practice. Please, bring back the structure of the sub talk page to its original state. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You stated that there was not references in that section. However it was exactly the same as the section above. Thus I combined the two adding content to a section that should have never been created in the first place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments in the talk page made no sense after your edits. This is the main reason why one should not edit any part of talk pages after it was commented upon. So, if only for this reason, please undo your modifications. And, no, it was not the same at all after your edits. Perhaps you did not see the difference between definitions of a term in dictionaries and its uses in practice. The definitions appear in tertiary sources whereas the uses of a term can appear in secondary sources. It is an important distinction. For this reason also, please undo your modifications. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments did not make sense before hand either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps they did not made sense to you. You are the only one that can tell that. That's not an excuse. You should not have changed the context of these comments. If you did not understand them, you should have asked. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Asystole

Sorry for overloading you with image requests but you are the only health care professorial that does active wiki work. I think you should try to hunt down a asystole ECG strip because the current ones are super low resolution. I think all the super high resolution ECGs I see on EMS blogs are spoiling me :P Peter.C • talk

Do you want real asystole, or "the lead got unhooked" asystole? There's a significant difference in the waveform (or, more appropriately, in the manner in which a waveform is lacking.) It's pretty rare for a 12 lead to be hooked up to an asystolic patient, so I assume you mean those optional printouts that some MED units have. Ronk01 talk 02:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be nice to have both versions of it. Also since it is rare to find a asystolic heart beat it is more important to have a version of that no matter what. And yes, I mean the printout. Peter.C • talk 02:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure will grab one the next time I see it. We get this fairly regularly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Image

I think I remember you asked for the deletion of several medical images with copyright problems a few months ago. I have a similar problem with an image, and I am not sure about how to procceed. Image is: File:PET scan Parkinson's Disease.jpg. Description states that it was created by NASA. However while it appears in a document by NASA at no point it is said that it was created by them. In addition it seems an internal document for a lection. Moreover I do not think that NASA is interested in performing PET scans to parkinson's disease patients. I participated in a discussion with a similar image 2 years ago about AD: See here. For the moment I am going to eliminate image from article. Thanks in advance.--Garrondo (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have just found the following notice in the index of the tutorial from where the image was taken:I GET MANY REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION TO USE ILLUSTRATIONS FROM THE TUTORIAL, OR ACTUAL COPIES THEREOF. ABOUT 95% OF THOSE YOU SEE WERE EXTRACTED OFF THE INTERNET (AND I HAVE INEXACT RECORDS OF THEIR SOURCE); THE OTHER 5% CAME FROM MY PERSONAL COLLECTION WHICH I HAVE SINCE GIVEN AWAY. I AM THEREFORE UNABLE TO FILL ANY REQUESTS INCLUDING PERMISSIONS, SO PLEASE DON'T SEND ANY.: So now it is clear that it is a copyright infrigement.--Garrondo (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Any hints on how to act regarding WP commons?--Garrondo (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
There is some page one post this sort of thing on. I do not remember again where it is. Will look when I am home in a couple of days. Unless you find it first :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Done by myself. Thanks. I was not sure if it had to be done at commons or WP.--Garrondo (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Most photo stuff takes place at commons except for fair us which are uploaded only to Wikipedia and not commons.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Trauma symptoms

Hello hello, I was wondering if trauma symptoms/physiologic response should be added to Trauma (medicine). I coulda sworn their was a section on it a while ago. I have 6 pages of physiologic responses just waiting to be used in the article (11 if you count the 5 pages on shock). Should I add the section back? Peter.C • talk 01:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect to physiological response that should be under mechanism rather than signs and symptoms.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, by mechanism you mean "Causes and risk factors", right? Peter.C • talk 13:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
By mechanisms | mean pathophysiology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Should I create a section for that or add on to an existing section. Sorry for all the stupid question but since trauma is a heavily read article I don't want to get any thing wrong. Peter.C • talk 15:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncapitalise, please

Hi. I think it takes an administrator to change the title of an article. Will you please un-capitalise all words except the first one in the title of Drug Discovery and Development of Melatonin Receptor Agonists? (The title may well need changing to something else. Meanwhile the excess capital letters begone!) Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How's Discovery and development of melatonin receptor agonists? I can start it with "Drug" if you like, I just thought this was more concise. (Sorry for butting in.) Anthony (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Anthony. Concise it ain't in any case. I wonder if it just couldn't be a part of Melatonin receptor? Haven't studied them both enuff yet. I also wonder if Melatonin receptor 1A, Melatonin receptor 1B and Melatonin receptor 1C need each their own articles... --Hordaland (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
That's way beyond my ken. Anthony (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

SCIIT Page

Hi Jmh649,

Just checking in on our discussion concerning the Short Immune Induction Therapy page, considering the references that I provided. Any word yet?


Tractatus Philosophicus (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Give me a few more days :-)--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV-title and NPOV-section tags

Just to inform you that I intend to take administrative actions with regard to your removal of the NPOV tags in the TM page while there was an active discussion regarding these related disputes. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edith your actions are becoming disruptive. There is no support for your proposal outside of practitioners of TM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I have brought this to the Incidents Noticeboard [1]. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag you placed in Jan 2010

Hi Doc, In Jan 2010 you left a NPOV tag here [[2]] but didn't specify on the talk page what your specific concerns were. Can you please do this now so that the concerns can be discussed and addressed and the tag removed? Or it may be that over the past 10 months since you posted the tag the issue has been resolved, in which case you could simply remove the tag. In either case, your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Will take a look over the next few days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Pediatric trauma

I was wondering if you could help me out and find my some sources on Pediatric trauma, the NEJM has nothing in the archives and I am trying to make it a DYK. Thanks!!! Peter.C • talk 01:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You could try JAMA or The Lancet, both journals are in the same line as NEJM. Ronk01 talk 03:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I don'y have any access to those journals, only the NEJM. Peter.C • talk 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I think both of them have most of their content online free of charge (there is a 3 moth delay I think) Ronk01 talk 02:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This paper is free [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help guys! Peter.C • talk 03:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Untrue and personalizing of statements

James this kind of statement,"from editors outside a group of WP:SPAs who admit to the practice of Transcendental Meditation" once again personalizes, mischaracterizes a discussion, and is also blatantly untrue. Further it poisons the well. This kind of behaviour/statement needs to stop. (olive (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

Here is another statement of this kind from James [4]. I know there are many more, but this one is also very recent. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that what I have stated is true. Please either find outside support for your suggestions or do not make any further comments here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Please show proof that this [5] is a single purpose account or do not repeat the charge again.(olive (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC))
Top edited pages are TM related. You have been however branching out a bit lately and hopefully will do so more in the future. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
If you continue to mischaracterize me and my work on Wikipedia, I will ask for admin intervention. Your tone is patronizing and your comment is both misleading and untrue. (olive (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC))
This link is perhaps a better indicator of the editor's principal attention on Wikipedia.[6] Out of 3915 article talk page edits, 3400 (87%) are to TM-related topics. I think the better term for some people is "primary purpose editors", which is a little broader than "single purpose accounts". However it is worth noting that one of the most active editors on the TM talk page is indeed an SPA.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC regarding Transcendental meditation

A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoing here. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the RfC. Resolution to that discussion is long overdue.(olive (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

Here is hoping this moves things forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my Talk page

Hi Doc James. Thanks for your note on my Talk page Please see my apologetic response on the Self-hurt talk page. Best wishes, FroidFroid 15:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

James, what do you think about atropine being removed from the 2010 American Heart Association resuscitation algorithm for asystole? I personally doubt their claim that "Available evidence suggests that the routine use of atropine during PEA or asystole is unlikely to have a therapeutic benefit." I've seen it work several times in asystolic patients, and hundreds of times in PEA patients. Anyway, on another topic, did you see the press release regarding NOTES (Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery)? Apparently they are delaying deployment again due to some complications in the trial patients. If you are interested, I can send you the link to the article. Ronk01 talk 01:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WRT atropine I have not seen evidence that it works. If the epinephrine you have given hasn't had an effect I do not no what a little atropine will add. But if a good paper appeared showing benefit I would change my mind. Without one I am happy to stop using it. Never heard of NOTES. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I might keep using it as a "we did everything we could" type of thing for the families of the patients, and as a CYAWP protocol. In any case, NOTES is the extreme end of minimally invasive surgery; essentially they take out the cutaneous incision entirely. There have been some reports of complications, and many of these procedures end up being converted to open or lap. Ronk01 talk 04:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
With the AHA and ILCOR backing up not using atropine in cardiac arrest I think you would have little legal concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Scuro

I am getting a lil tired of this but the drama is back. I suppose if you repeat a falsehood enough times people will believe it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. --Hordaland (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis

Huh??99.190.66.38 (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Could dizziness be a sign of enhancement of the meninges?

Dear James

My friend and I have been reading the above article with interest. My friend has been suffering with dizziness for many years now and continues to do so and is finding it very difficult to diagnose the problem within the NHS system here in the UK. She was diagnosed with hydrocephalus and has had both a mini and major shunt implanted however continues to suffer and has subsequently had to give up her job and is housebound due to this debilitating illness. Can you possible help? Regards [Personally Identifying Information Removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.108.1 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy prevents Wikipedian physicians like James and I from dispensing medical advice. You could try a non-NHS doctor for faster results, but it will be more expensive. (I'm a US doc, so I only know a little about the NHS) Ronk01 talk 21:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I plan to work on this page further in the future. Yes underlying brain disease can cause dizziness but speaking with and being examined by a physician in person is best. Treatment depends on the underlying diagnosis. Do wish you the best of luck. If you wish to improve this page or any other feel free. Would be happy to help you find evidence. Cheers. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:MED

James, do you have any idea how many articles within the scope WP:MED? I looked on the project page, but for some reason, there wasn't a number there. Thanks in advance. Ronk01 talk 01:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Castleguard Cave vs. cave

I suspect that your most recent edit was well-intentioned, but misinformed. The proper name of the cave is, in fact, "Castleguard Cave" and not "Castleguard (a cave)". Most caves in the world follow the nomenclature "X Cave" (with a few exceptions: for example, Gargantua, which is a cave, is not called Gargantua Cave).

Rather than me do it, please reverse your activity on both the article and its Talk page, to restore the proper title Castleguard Cave. Both words are part of the cave's official title, whether you agree with the style or not. The accepted name is that which appears on the survey, and which also appears in almost all written references that I know of. Thanks, Ian mckenzie (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah did not realize. Will take care of it shortly. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Scabies (references)

Medical articles on Wikipedia are written based on the best available evidence in a consistent format. A list of resources to help you edit can be found here. The diberri tool will aid formatting the references for us in articles. All one needs to do is cut and paste the results. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a note. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, thanks, but you're talking to somebody who has been on wikipedia two years longer than you have, and has written just as much of it (edit reversion numbers don't count). So, if you have questions, feel free to drop me a note yourself! The references for the material on treatment in the scabies lede are found later in the article. A lede/lead can lack referencing if it summarizes information given later (otherwise ledes would be absolutely overloaded with cite tags, since they are summaries of summaries). I myself have added references on treatment of scabies to this article, though I cannot vouch that they are all in the same format. Wikipedia has no consistant reference format style, nor is one prescribed at MEDMOS. Rather it has many competing ones, and this is due to the nature of wikipedia, where the large number of editors has prevented any consensus (this is a pathology of wikipedia). As for the idea that medical articles must be in a "consistant format" (citing WP:MEDMOS) you forget that there is nothing in MEDMOS about ledes. There is no consensus even in MoS about how to write article ledes, save for some remarks about length and generality. Writing good ledes is an art. As a rule of thumb, we try to keep these things shorter than 5 paragraphs for long articles and 3 is considered good for a medium-length one. Most of the medical articles on WP have inadequate ledes, and I'm one of the people here trying to rectify that. So, why don't you watch me and learn? (said with a very civil AGF grin). SBHarris 20:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Responded on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Sbharris's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Please reinsert the NPOV-section tag

You removed three times a NPOV-section Tag regarding how to present research in the Intro of the TM article. This tag was initially inserted on August 5 2010 after all attempts to resolve this specific dispute failed. At the time, the last 15 sections or so in the talk page, including an ongoing Rfc, were about Research in the Intro and mainly about the specific contentious statement that is still being disputed today. You removed this NPOV-section tag [7] a first time after you created a split on September 1st against a recommendation in another Rfc [8]. This split removed the Research section out of the article without any discussion whatsoever and kept the contentious statement about research in the Intro. Thus this NPOV Tag removal was not acceptable. Later, the contentious statement was logically removed by Will Beback [9] leaving only the neutral fact that TM is among the most widely researched meditation techniques, but you reinserted it [10]. So, logically, because the contentious statement was still there, the NPOV-section tag was reinserted, but you removed the NPOV tag again [11] for a second time. The NPOV-section tag was inserted again together with a NPOV-title tag, which was for the new dispute related to the recent split. A section in the talk page (see Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#NPOV-Title_and_NPOV-section_.28intro.29_Dispute or [12]) explained the two disputes, including the dispute about the Research in the Intro. After, we achieved consensus regarding how to rebuild the split TM article, but not regarding the contentious statement about Research, you removed the NOV-section tag again for a third time. Now, the recent discussion in the TM talk page clearly shows that this is still an active dispute. I propose that you reinsert this POV-section tag because you are the one who removed it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You have placed this NPOV tag multiple times without any outside editor agreeing that it is needed. The text you refer to is supported by a RfC. You and a number of other editors where put under an edit restriction due to your continued refusal to accept outside opinion. This refusal continues. It appears to me that a number of editors are only here to promote Transcendental Meditation not here to write a general encyclopedia. I propose that you attempt to find outside support at one of the notice boards. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Can you please tell me why you removed the links I had placed in reference for photos on Herpes? These are unique photos not found on your site and they cover a number of different images of various stages of outbreaks. They are much more inclusive then the links that are presently on the site and enhance the information given to readers.

http://www.information-on-herpes.com

Same question for the Genital Warts images I had provided a link for in ref. on the genital Warts page.

http://www.hpv-genitalwarts.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidandkimbenton (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidandkimbenton (talk • contribs) 14:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We have pictures that are similar to all the ones on this external website. Thus per WP:ELNO this site adds nothing that Wikipedia would not if at FA.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with you on the photos not adding anything. The images are different then the wiki images and they are clearly labeled explaining the different stages of infection. Something not done on the wiki pages...I wish you would reconsider, but thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidandkimbenton (talk • contribs) 00:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you make a quick move for me

I moved the article Barack Obama economic policy to Economic policy of the Barack Obama administration, but the talk page refuses to move. Could I get you to make the move really quickly? (The move is non-controversial) Thanks! Ronk01 talk 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Butting in here, I'd say that the new title indeed is controversial. The P and the A should be lower case. --Hordaland (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
True, I'll change that. Perhaps the talk page will move then. Ronk01 talk 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, an Admin is needed to move the page to that destination. Ronk01 talk 01:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Done --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ronk01 talk 02:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I will be requesting formal mediation. Please let me know if you wish to be included or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thank you.(olive (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Per MedCom policy, all parties must sign agreement in order for mediation to carry forward, where party is defined as any editor actively involved in the dispute. Ronk01 talk 02:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is Ronk. Parties to the dispute are those who are named in the request for mediation. Editors may either be added to the parties' list in the mediation or may add their names later at their own discretion. I like to ask editors if they want to be added or not, rather than assume they want to be involved. Mediations are meant to help difficult situations, to bring in a neutral party who will assist the editors in coming to resolution, so there can be no down side to a mediation for any editor who wants a good, neutral article.(olive (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
No, parties to the dispute are defined by who is involved in the dispute, not who agrees to mediation. If all parties to the dispute do not agree to mediation, the mediation does not go forward. Woonpton (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
No that's not correct. As I said above, parties to the dispute are those named in the request. Then those editors may or may not choose to be part of the mediation. If those named, then refuse to be part of the mediation, the mediation cannot go forward. (olive (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
Formal mediation, run by the the Mediation Committee, requires all parties to participate. Informal mediation, run by the Mediation Cabal, does not. Also, the MedCom prefers that parties first try informal mediation. For those reasons, it seems like the Mediation Cabal would be the best place to start.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
"All parties" is not defined, as I assumed Woonpton means, by any of those on the discussion page of the dispute, but by those who are named as parties in the actual request for mediation, unless something has recently changed. (olive (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
Perhaps it'd be wise if you consulted with someone on the MedCab or MedCom about the best way to proceed.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The TM talk page is a muddle. However, I'm willing to try to make some sense of what's going on there before I go any further. Maybe, we can clean it up ourselves.(olive (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

As a MedCab member, I can assure that few mediators will accept a former ArbCom case without near total participation. If there are specific concerns regarding editor behavior, they might be better addressed through AE than mediation, which is typically centered around content concerns. If there are any further questions, don't hesitate to contact me. Ronk01 talk 17:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The issues are content concerns which is why AE is not appropriate. The decision to not participate in collaborative efforts to resolve contentious issues is an editor's choice, but doesn't help lessen the contention.(Not meant as a judgement, just an action /effect statement. We all have our own reasons for doing things.) I was also given a suggestion by Anthony the chair of the Mediation committee so I 'll keep that in mind too. Thanks for you offer to help.(olive (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

"Human" in headings of Sexual intercourse article

Hello, Jmh649. The reason "human" is in the headings is due to what was stated here: Talk:Sexual intercourse#Humans and undue weight.

Since sexual intercourse does not only refer to humans, it was brought up that the sections dealing with humans should also be represented in the headings. This is why I reverted you. However, since "sexual intercourse" usually refers to humans, and we do have an "In other animals" section, I am not against your edits. If you decide to reinstate them, will you at least explain why you did so in the linked section above? Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

HVAC and the common cold.

I need to know that you are a human being and not a censorship bot. If you do not pass I will report paid censorship, alternatively and uncontrolled moderation by medical experts.

Which part of my addition to the common cold is not general medical and HVAC knowlege?

Drying weather makes suceptible people's nasal passage lining drier and more vulnerable to viral infection. During cold weather, people control their indoors enviroments limited to air temperature, causing extremely low humidity; evaporative body cooling and radiation cooling despite air temperature. A body conserving heat has slower lymph and mucous trasport, and infections will encounter less resistance and mobility. In summmary it would be better too wear thicker clothes and take a warm shower, than to crank the thermostat up.

Drying weather makes suceptible people's nasal passage lining drier and more vulnerable to viral infection. -True During cold weather, people control their indoors enviroments limited to air temperature, causing extremely low humidity; evaporative body cooling and radiation cooling despite air temperature. - True

A body conserving heat has slower lymph and mucous trasport, and infections will encounter less resistance and mobility. - Duh (If the air is hot the bactira will multipy on membraines, but the body will signal reatain heat if chilled despite the air tempeature.)

In summmary it would be better too wear thicker clothes and take a warm shower, than to crank the dry thermostat up. - This is the thing most people don't realize, because they're still heathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan c chase (talk • contribs) 01:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and all you need is evidence to back you up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Avatar script, page 42

I vaguely understand the userbox reference to the number 42 -- Douglas Adams and "life, the universe and everything." I remembered that userbox when I chanced upon an outside the box curiosity worth sharing.

After re-watching the DVD version of Avatar, I took a look at the Wikipedia article Avatar (film). I don't doubt that you are amongst the millions who have seen this movie.

An external link on that page leads to an online copy of the Avatar shooting script here; and at page 42, we find these lines:

JAKE: If I'm so ignorant, maybe you should teach me.
NEYTIRI: Sky people can not learn. You do not See.
She leaps to another elevated root. Jake follows, surprised that he made it.
JAKE: Whooaa.
He runs to catch up with her easy jogging pace.
JAKE: Then teach me to "see."
She stops and he almost runs into her.
NEYTIRI: No one can teach you to See.
Then she turns and trots on ....

In a sense, this exchange is like asking for mentoring. As you know In the course of the narrative, we learn that Neytiri was mistaken in her conventional, but over-hasty judgment. --Tenmei (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar of course with Douglas Adams but have never seen Avatar. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to fill a cup which is already full

Sorry -- another wrong step. I was looking for just one line in the script. It comes a bit later (at page 48). The speaker is a tribal elder, a wise old woman.

MO'AT: ... It is hard to fill a cup which is already full.

The metaphor is not unique. I have encountered something like this in other words in other contexts, but I hoped that this quote might be especially useful because it comes from a source in popular culture. Does this stand on its own, despite the fact that you have not yet seen this movie? --Tenmei (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_13&oldid=1136193807"