User talk:Doc James

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from User talk:Jmh649)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Formulating proposals[edit]

I am very disappointed by the proposal on interlinking of accounts. Many of the concerns of opposing users should have been obvious and taken into account when formulating the proposal, and such a proposal should have a discussion explaining why the specific wording was chosen and what concerns are handled by it and what concerns remain. It is very frustrating to have a long discussion on issues that could have been handled by a little more work put down in the proposal itself: hundreds or thousands of lines instead of a few paragraphs. --LPfi (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC

User:LPfi The proposal will help a great deal with with undisclosed paid editing. If we at Wikipedia wish to maintain our independence from the subject mater we write about this is a critical step we need to take. We are currently being over run on EN WP by undisclosed paid promotional editors (with problems less severe in other languages). We have lots of people pretending to be Wikipedians in good standing when they are permanently banned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This might be true. But then it is even more important that the proposal is well though out so that it fulfils its object, and that is accompanied by a thorough enough discussion from the start. It is no reason to word the proposal carelessly, so that it has bad side effects or so that we get 100k discussion about possible side effects. --LPfi (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
User:LPfi I am not sure what you are requesting? We have had multiple discussions about the issue of paid editing across multiple projects including EN WP and Meta and what potential solutions there are. The wording of this proposal was run by the legal team at the WMF and the safety team plus a few people on EN Arbcom before the RfC started.
I am not seeing any potential side effects and neither did they. One often only get people weighting in once the RfC officially launches. Do you believe there is wording that would garner greater support? And what wording would you prefer to see? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
By the way added details of a case in which this would help[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

But to summarize IMO our readers deserve an indepedent and advertisement free Wikipedia. We need to take measures to achieve this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Links we discussed[edit]

Project closures

A couple of members have commented on each of these, but without anything resembling a consensus discussion. See the two discussion threads, such as they are, at this page.

In neither case are there any comments supporting project closure, and in neither case would closure be consistent with policy. Historically, plenty of project closure proposals have stayed open months and even years. But the tone of these is such that I think the proposals should be closed promptly (as unsuccessful, of course).
Project approvals

In both cases, the tests have met requirements for content, activity of community and interface translation. (Frankly, I haven't checked activity levels for October. But there's only so much patience that test communities can have while waiting for LangCom to act, too.)

Thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

There is clear consensus here[2] not to close it.
I will send this to the rest of langcomm. They are actively discussing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Some of these should be dealt with in the next week or so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the nudge. As a practical matter, I know there is not consensus to close either project. But I needed a statement of that in LangCom and a formal start of the seven-day clock. Now I have those.
I'm going to see if the Gorontalo project has a reasonably disinterested language expert with solid credentials who can verify the language for that project. As for LFN, we'll have to see how that plays out. But maybe at least they will start discussing now. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Pop-up showing authorship info on every article in mainspace[edit]

As per your suggestion, I added the idea to the 2017 wishlist here. Do you have any further recommendations? SashiRolls (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Reading Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation/Votes I wonder why you go after people that oppose your RfC? This isn't just a few clarifying remarks, this is a very clear trend. — Jeblad 11:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

So User:Bluerasberry appear to state that I have not addressed the concerns raised and you are here to state I am not to address the concerns raised regarding the proposal?
Those who oppose the idea already get at least twice the vote as those who support it (and some are claiming those opposed deserve four times the vote as those who support it).
Meh Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Kurdish Wikipedia[edit]

Hello Doc James,
As you know, Wikipedia is blocked in Turkey, therefore ku.wikipedia is also directly affected. How can we make the connection easier for some users who request it, such as ku:User:Mohajeer (VPN doesn't seem to work very well). Best regards--Ghybu (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Ghybu there are mirrors that one can use. Apps can be used aswell.
Further details here Response_to_2017_ban_in_Turkey Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Re:Translation of three sentences into Yo[edit]

Yes check.svg Done. See: here. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikitext editor syntax highlighting[edit]

Regarding your Wikitext editor syntax highlighting request, are you happy with the font-weight, font-size and bolding, and just want the colors changed to be like WikED colors, or do you want the appearance including weight, size and bolding to match WikED as much as possible? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Wbm1058 to match WikEd as much as possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Global preferences ready for testing[edit]

Greetings,

I am contacting you because of your support for Global settings in the 2016 Community Tech Wishlist. Global preferences are now available for beta testing, and need your help before being released to the wikis.

  1. Read over the help page, it is brief and has screenshots
  2. Login or register an account on Beta English Wikipedia
  3. Visit Global Preferences and try enabling and disabling some settings
  4. Visit some other language and project test wikis such as English Wikivoyage, German Wiktionary, the Hebrew Wikipedia and test the settings
  5. Report your findings, experience, bugs, and other observations

Once the team has feedback on design issues, bugs, and other things that might need worked out, the problems will be addressed and global preferences will be sent to the wikis.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing on your CV[edit]

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/education/2018-April/001952.html has a question about whether/how people list editing Wikipedia on their résumés. Do you (or any of your talk-page stalkers) know of any useful pages describing this, or a discussion that might be useful to them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Commond deletion bot requirements[edit]

I'm contacting you because you supported the Commons Deletion Bot proposal in the 2017 Community Wishlist. The Wishlist team has finalized the draft specifications for how the bot will work, and are seeking review in confirming or discussing the plans for the bot. If you have some time, please take a look and leave a comment. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Keegan (WMF) thanks will do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

SVG Translate Community wishlist survey project[edit]

Hello! Thank you for voting for the SVG Translate project that was proposed in the 2017 Wishlist survey. The Community Tech team in the Wikimedia Foundation is beginning to start their work on the project. We're currently looking for feedback on some open questions which will allow us to come up with preliminary designs for the tool. If you are interested in being involved, you can watch the project page and join in the discussions on the talk page. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and learning from your experiences. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF), Product Manager, Community Tech (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sign-up for Whose Knowledge? on-line newsletter[edit]

Hi everybody,

We are leaving the wiki newsletter format behind and venturing into the email newsletter format. We'd love to keep sharing our projects and adventures with you all! You can sign up here to make that happen.

See you all there!

With love & solidarity,

Claudia - and the WK? Comms Team using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Tuskegee Study[edit]

You may wish to revisit your claim that it "is debated" that the Tuskegee Study did not offer penicillin to the men in the study (here). This is not what the source says. I've written about this misleading edit (at Wikipediocracy) and will be happy to provide a correction or update, as needed. Best, SashiRolls (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

User:SashiRolls source says "Finally, penicillin therapy was available in the later stages of the TSUS. By 1952, 28% of the syphilitic patients examined in the TSUS had received penicillin therapy. Ironically, only 33% of the controls received it.26"
So yes compared to the controls many of the people in the TSUS appear to have received penicillin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
On re reading the penicillin may have been given for alternate reasons (not necessarily the syphilis). Adjusted the wording. to match this[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for improving this a bit. In fact, after looking through some comments from the same author on a different article in his bibliography, I think what he's suggesting is that some of the subjects received treatment through other sources (specifically because of the mandatory testing and treatment of early-stage syphilis in Alabama at the time). As you note, others may have received penicillin for reasons unrelated to the disease. I wrote up my post at WPO before commenting here in large part because the misleading text had been on the page for 7 years. I still feel like "many of" is quite strong when we're speaking of only 28% of one cohort, when previous cohorts had percentages of less than 3% receiving penicillin according to the same article. I would have just fixed it myself if I could (adding the crucial element about the lack of "informed consent"), but I can't -- as you probably know -- because of the Cirt/Sagecandor affair. It's really surprising how often I find these sorts of misreadings / one-sided presentations. I could flatter myself and think I just have a nose for it; but in fact, I'm afraid it's more that these sorts of misrepresentations are simply quite common on English Wikipedia. SashiRolls (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree "many" is a little unclear User:SashiRolls. Have clarified with the exact numbers.[4]
Appreciate you bringing these concerns here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Well then, I'll ask one more time that greater emphasis be placed on the established scholarship rather than on the critical / revisionist retrospective which snipes at details along the way. The fact is that all along the way those in the study were deliberately discouraged from getting therapy elsewhere, not only by the perks of being involved in the study, but also by the illusion that they were being treated. Consider the notice sent round for the completely free "special treatment" spinal tap, mentioned in the article by Allan M. Brandt that White is responding to.

Some time ago you were given a thorough examination and since that time we hope you have gotten a great deal of treatment for bad blood. You will now be given your last chance to to get a special treatment if it is believed you are in a condition to stand it. ...Remember This is Your Last Chance For Special Free Treatment. Be Sure To Meet The Nurse.

cited in: Allan M. Brandt (December 1978). "Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study" (PDF). The Hastings Center Report 8 (6): 24. PMID 721302. doi:10.2307/3561468. Retrieved September 30, 2018. 

It is no accident that one of the primary sources treated in White's revisionist piece is the Harvard historian's 1978 paper; I believe it's a mistake/distortion of the record to present one without the other.
The focus on "femmes fatales" in the literature section is troublingly narrow. What is to be said about the fact that Rabelais dedicated Gargantua to "Vous Vérolez très précieux" (most likely referring to François Ier who granted the royal privilege or right to publish and whose mistress, La Belle Ferronière, was so blamed for his infection that even her epitaph made reference to this transmission)? Why is there no mention of Shakespeare's obsession with the disease, or of the admonition on his tombstone that his bones should never be worried? Did the Bard know that one day the "substantific marrow" of his bones would give away his games? ^^
In the Arts section, it's also worth noting that the reference to artposter.com does not at all support the claims being made about the choice of Jan van der Straet. It's too bad, because the story of bringing back Guyaco from Hispaniola is an interesting treatment story not mentioned in the article. (Cf. G. Barraud, Le traitement héroïque du mal vénérien, Revue d'Histoire de la Pharmacie, 1953)
Please accept these comments in the spirit of an periodic 7-year GA-review, in which the less medical sources are checked. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Cochrane mess[edit]

One of our best allies in Cochrane has resigned over the handling of the recent mess: http://www.nogracias.eu/2018/10/08/regenerate-cochrane-to-strengthen-the-production-of-trusted-evidence-for-the-common-good-of-public-health-by-david-hammerstein/ I suspect it's better to avoid any Wikimedia (official) communication related to Cochrane until they elect a new board, so that nobody can suspect we're taking sides. --Nemo 16:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I have no official opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi,

You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)