User talk:Doc James

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

wht u deleted page

	wht u deleted page
	wht u deleted page ThakurSaabji (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure to what you refer User:ThakurSaabji? Do you own the copyright to this[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:SkinInEosinCell.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:SkinInEosinCell.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:OP}} on file description page. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own. Unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Smooth O (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Smooth O please look at the source in question which says "This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited." Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is the WMF warring over Flow?

As you probably know, Commons reached consensus to uninstall Flow.[2] A volunteer developer had already written the patch to complete the Phabricator task, however the WMF halted deployment with no explanation. The WMF has just posted a response refusing to uninstall.[3] Again with no explanation.

I do not understand why the WMF is fighting consensus here, and more importantly I think the only result will be to pointlessly worsen the WMF-community relationship.

While my first preference is of course for the consensus task to be completed, as a Board member I was hoping you would at a minimum take an interest in investigating WHY the WMF feels it is worth fighting the community over this. As I said, the WMF has given no explanation whatsoever. Alsee (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The WMF is responding by building a superprotect for Flow.[4] Alsee (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay will look. Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Doc James I'd like to make a correction. I said no explanation was offered. However the commons post was so upsetting that I missed the asserted rationale. They're citing the log entries for deleted pages. This was not a problem on EnWiki, it was not a problem on Meta, and no one cares about log entries for non-existent Flow pages. And people care even less about logs for Flow-test pages, which is all Commons ever had. Alsee (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Alsee Okay so my understanding is that currently Commons does not allow Flow pages. And that currently their are no Flow pages on Commons. While the software may be lingering in the background, if it is unused is that not sufficient? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've heard there are two Flow pages on Commons. At the moment I can only point to one: Commons_talk:Flow.

Regarding leaving Flow in the background, this is the third time it's being redebated. Here's the meta-discussion:

• On EnWiki, the WMF proposed leaving Flow installed in the background. The involved editors and WMF discussed it and came to agreement that would not be sufficient. There was WMF-editor agreement that consensus was sufficiently obvious without need of a formal RFC. Flow was amicably uninstalled.
• On Meta: The RFC proposal was "Proposal to remove Flow on Meta-Wiki". I foresaw that the WMF might interpret it as leaving Flow in the background. I opened an RFC subsection Clarification_of_purpose. Among those who supported the RFC, they explicitly and unanimously ruled out leaving Flow in the background. Two of the RFC opponents also commented in that section. One merely reiterated opposition to the RFC as a whole, however the other opponent notably affirmed the RFC intent was explicitly for uninstall and not leaving Flow in the background. I would like to note that the section got hatted, and I'd like to offer an opinion on why. I think people considered it blindingly-obvious that the intent was explicit uninstall. I think some people considered it unnecessary/offensive/bad_faith to question whether leaving Flow in the background would be acceptable. It turns out I was right to open the section. When the Phab task was filed, the WMF did initially interpret it as leaving Flow in the background. I cited the explicit consensus that against that option. That initial misunderstanding was quickly and amicably cleared up. Flow was uninstalled.
• On Commons: The proposal was absolutely explicit on uninstall. Many supports were brief, but some support rationales explicitly preclude any interpretation of leaving Flow in the background. The WMF ignored the public discussion, the WMF had their own non-public discussion, the WMF refused repeated requests to shine light on the nature of those internal discussions, then the WMF spent five days building a super protection mode for Flow in secret.[5][6] The WMF plans-or-planned to roll out the undiscussed new Flow feature. When that was announced, a number of people from the RFC began explicitly objecting that it was not an acceptable alternative. I, and I'm sure others, consider it perverse and offensive for the WMF to assert that we were requesting development of a yet another Flow feature.

Given that Flow isn't wanted on Commons, given that the WMF agrees that Flow isn't going to be here in any functional form, is there any credible reason for the WMF to damage relations over this? The WMF is citing Flow logs as a technical-reason not to uninstall. However that rationale makes no sense, and the WMF's insistence on covert discussions compounds questions about the sincerity of that rationale. Instead of wasting time and money developing a Flow-lockdown mode, the WMF could have addressed the log issue instead. That is clearly the correct technical answer, that would clean up any log concern for EnWiki and Meta. I see no good-faith way the WMF can claim the log issue is severe enough to prevent a Commons uninstall while simultaneously prohibiting the logs from being cleaned up for EnWiki and Meta. Alsee (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I am with you in not liking flow. IMO we do not need three different way to edit Wikipedia when two is enough. And unfortunately flow has distracted from the development of wanted changes to talk pages. Though developing stuff for communities other than EN WP is something I support.

With respect to "delete and disable" versus "uninstall" both results in the same outward result and thus I am not seeing this as a critical issue. Any return of this software IMO would need a clear super majority. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"flow has distracted from the development of wanted changes to talk pages" - that is passive phrasing. The WMF has been actively rejecting work on Talk pages. Every single time, the WMF politely states they won't do squat for us unless we switch to Flow first. As long as key management are married to the idea that Flow is going to eventually replace all talk pages, they don't want to engage in wasted/counterproductive work improving a system they want to eliminate. It's a slow form of sabotage-by-neglect. By the way, that is one of the reasons people want Flow uninstalled rather than hidden. Maybe we can finally get things like section watchlisting if the WMF accepts that Flow isn't on a slow-roll to replace Talk pages. Alsee (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the last bit you raise is by far more important than the uninstall / disable discussion IMO. If dreams of "flow" are being used to prevent development of the primary talk page system than we need to be discussing that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Permission to use image

Hi James,
Are you willing to share the following images under the CC-BY 4.0 license (without the share-alike necessity), so I can use them on Radlines?
Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

User:Mikael Häggström I see a few of my images here already.[7]

Appears they allow CC BY SA Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It did initially allow that, but now all images there should be no more restrictive than CC-BY, so I still need to ask. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I generally like the "SA" part of the license. But sure if you need it for these 4 images I am willing to wave it on these User:Mikael Häggström. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, and Merry Christmas! Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

File:RettScoliosis.png

I asked (using template) to clarify to image status as at the source link https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2164934/figure/F1/ it is now "For legal reasons, the publisher has withdrawn permission for online, public display of this article". Sorry if some misunderstanding from my side. --NeoLexx (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Still published under an open license.

We are not deleting for copyright reasons so moved to here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Image without license

File:Amyloidosis1.webm

---

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

• Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
• State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
• If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
• Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
• Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it, please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ->Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 07:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yah the crop video tool is still in development. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Graphic that you uploaded concerning # of COVID-19 specimens tested is out of date by over a week.

Lab-specimens-tested

On the page for 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Additional_information_on_cases), you added a graph on the "Additional information on cases" section concerning the number of specimens tested. The graphic needs updating, but I don't seem to have permissions.

The source material from the CDC is on the page below:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/testing-in-us.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Ftesting-in-us.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oltemative (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Oltemative new version above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Outbreak-coronavirus-world-large.png

File:Outbreak-coronavirus-world-large.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You deserve a gold one 🥇 Vera (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletions

File tagging File:Covid-19-Handshake-Alternatives-v3.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Covid-19-Handshake-Alternatives-v3.gif. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:OP}} on file description page. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own. Unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

A1Cafel (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:Covid-19-curves-graphic2-stopthespread-v3.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Covid-19-curves-graphic2-stopthespread-v3.gif. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:OP}} on file description page. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own. Unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Covid-19-curves-graphic2-stopthespread-v3.gif

File:Covid-19-curves-graphic2-stopthespread-v3.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

pandakekok9 08:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I am against deletion by the way. pandakekok9 08:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Covid-19-Handshake-Alternatives-v3.gif

File:Covid-19-Handshake-Alternatives-v3.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

pandakekok9 08:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Covid-19-Handshake-Alternatives-v3.gif

File:Covid-19-Handshake-Alternatives-v3.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

ComputerHotline (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please correct InfluenzaCaseMortality.svg

InfluenzaCaseMortality

Illustration of SARS-COV-2 Case Fatality Rate 200228 01-1

The graph is off by an order of magnitude in all categories. You need to use Table 1 from the reference. Table 2 has differing definitions of population at risk, shown by the different ratios calculated between tables 1 and 2. —— 2600:1700:4881:CD0:803:22BE:90A2:8826 16:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Source is here[8]

What is taking the deaths and dividing it by symptomatic illness? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Mortality is 0.8% in the over 65 group... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I reread and recalculated. You were correct. I apologize for the error. The table 2 mortality was overall mortality with and without symptoms for COVID. I misunderstood the publication. Surprisingly high mortality! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kd4ttc (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Less than 1% in those over 65 is not that high. Expecially when you look at the mortality in COVID19 in that age group. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong graph (wrong numbers and wrong massage)

Dear James,

in the german and english article “Influenza“ is a graph made by you suggesting the mortality of influenza in the US for the season 2018/2019.

Something went totally wrong with that (or was sabotaged by somebody). The numbers in your graph are all skipped by two digits. In the original source the summ is 100%, not 1%, and the numbers express only the related burden (relative Verteilung) in-between the different age classes, not the absolut number of deaths in percent in a specific age category related to all infected people in the US.

I hope you understand the difference and change that asap.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

PS, as I see right now, there are also estimates for the total mortality rate of x in 100.000 with a UI95% on the same webpage. But that are completely other numbers than those you (or somebody else) used.

Please check that cause it is a serious mistake.

Best regards,

Andreas Walter. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:908:C60:4460:51F1:CD63:11C5:83F8 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is. This is a graph of deaths divided by symptomatic illness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, my fault. Your numbers are OK. I made the math by myself. I think it has to do with the look, the design of the graph. Would be good to have the percentage over or under every age group since there is no grid. It's also unusual to use 0,25% steps, in my opinion, but people in the US even think in miles and gallons and use a point (dot) where europeans use a comma. The (german?) guy did not adapt the graph in the german article to european standards.

0,007% / 0,003% / 0,021% / 0,062% / 0,831% (since the grid is to corse for the first 4 columns) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:908:C60:4460:E569:9C15:355D:4151 (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree good points. Will try to create a new version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

A small potential improvement

Hi Doc. I hope you're well. Just saw these because I have your talk on my watchlist. I might suggest something that I think would be an improvement on the second chart: the in-graphic title states just "Fatality Rate", which a layman would almost certainly assume means infection fatality rate. It certainly has a filename and description stating that it is case fatality rate, but I think the in-graphic title has the potential to mislead someone who doesn't know the difference and is trying to figure out what the chances of dying are, given one is infected. AFAIK we don't have good estimates of IFR yet (and I know the graph isn't purporting to show IFR). I know you didn't create this chart, but do you think it would be worthwhile inserting "Case" in the title? I can perform the edit if you think it would be valuable, but I'll rely on your judgment. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Storkk yes an excellent idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay have adjusted both... Not sure if this addresses the issues. Not able to figure out how to replace "." with ","Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks great... Not sure what "." and "," you are referring to. If being picky, I'd replace "8" with "8.0". Storkk (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please reconsider the deletion request

Dear Doc James, you have labeled the picture for deletion referring to possible copyright violation. I would like to let you know that I have taken the picture from the source article where it was published and the whole content of the article including the pictures were labeled under CCA-NC 4.0 license which allowed me to download and share the picture while crediting the authors. You can find it online at: https://www.emjreviews.com/urology/article/efficacy-of-the-artificial-urinary-sphincter-zsi-375-for-treatment-of-post-radical-prostatectomy-incontinence-in-patients-with-intrinsic-sphincter-deficiency-a-preliminary-study/

“Each article is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 License.”

HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

We do not allow none open source licenses. NC is not open source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Noted. Reviewed the policy on freely licensed images. Thank you for the clarification! HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Permission to Use Images

Dear Dr. James Heilman, MD,

My name is Kyle and I am creating a website to help medical students learn how to read and interpret x-ray images. I came across several of your x-ray images on Wikimedia Commons and would absolutely love to use them on my membership-based website. Will you allow me to use them and how would you like to be attributed on my site? Also, is there any way to remove arrows or crop images? If so, how would I properly attribute the changes to the image? I am interested in using approximately 30 of your x-ray images. I can shoot you an email if you would like a list of the images I would like to use.

Thank you so much for your consideration and your work. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Kylebarner1 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

They are all avaliable under an open license. Simple attribute myself and Wikipedia. I have often uploaded versions with and without an arrow. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Meili17.jpg

File:Meili17.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: not own work https://www.ndpcaucus.sk.ca/ryanmeili Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Yilku1 (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)