User talk:Doc James

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:Jmh649)
Jump to: navigation, search

Copyright issue follow-up[edit]

Toilet pictures deletion

  • Uploader here [1]
  • Deleting admin User:JuTa
  • OTRS ticket [Ticket#: 2015080310012117]
  • Further discussion [2]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

File:An example of plagarism of a work from Wikipedia.jpg[edit]

Hi, Doc James, this image seems to be a copy from yours, uploaded February 10, 2010 by yourselves. It cites as source: "Nishith Patel". Any idea what this could mean? I'd like to insert the image on the Plagiarism article, hence my question. Thank you for your time. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is an image of mine, that someone by the name called "Nishith Patel" claimed as their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Do you think it would be a good example to add to the Plagiarism article, just to show how far plagiarism can reach? Lotje (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Yup would be happy with that. We do not own the text however just the picture. Maybe we should crop / blur it? What do you think User:Lotje Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Since the image is yours anyway, you coud easily upload a new version with a blurred text. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

File:At008g22.jpg[edit]

Hi, Please use the gadget to create DR. See in your preferences. Yours was not properly done. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Which gadget is that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah found it. Great tool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

File:RABORAL V-RG® baits.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:RABORAL V-RG® baits.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.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Smooth_O (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Smooth O I just cropped the picture. I was not the one who uploaded it. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Template is automatically added to all file contributors. --Smooth_O (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

File:James 5 (Final 4)a.png[edit]

Hi. Is this some kind of selfie? --Base (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes a stand and a timer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

use of an image in an anatomy textbook[edit]

Hello,

Could you please contact me at info@wanderlustphotos.com about the possibility of using this image (see link below) in an anatomy textbook? I know it's in creative commons as being able to be used commercially, but the publisher won't automatically accept the CC-BY-SA license and prefers to get formal permission.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AcetabularfracX.png

Thanks,

Kristin

Sure you may use it User:Wanderlustphotos. Please attribute "James Heilman, MD, Wikipedia" Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

File:SubconjunctivalBleed.JPG[edit]

I categorized your file File:SubconjunctivalBleed.JPG and File:Syndactyly2014.JPG. It is not correct to categorize in a generic Category:Medicine. --Jmarchn (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good User:Jmarchn thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Arachnoid cyst.png[edit]

I recategorized your upload file. Please, try to categorize your uploads to more adjusted category.--Jmarchn (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

And the Petechia images.--Jmarchn (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Not much experience with the category system. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your change of Jext300-Autoinjektor-02.jpg[edit]

It is a common rule to use "Derivate" or "Extraxt", if you wish to alter a file. And it would be a sign of politeness and good education, to respect the explicit wish of the author, not too touch the original file. Furthermore, as I am an active photographer and hold the RAW material of the file, it is only a small effort to ask me, if I can produce a second view of the photo upon your wishes. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: There is a smaller file already available under File:Jext300-Autoinjektor-03.jpg --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure happy to upload a new file after cropping off the white space. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The goal was to get it to format the same as the others.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Well done. If you need special formats or crops from other files, you always can message me and I am glad to help. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Perfect thanks User:Cccefalon :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The man[edit]

The man with Jaundice looks like my late father. Why is he here? Did he give permission to use this after his death?

If you email me his name I can send you the consent. But yes the gentleman with jaundice gave consent for the use of his image on Wikipedia. He wanted to help other people who had a similar condition to him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:WilliamsSyndrome.jpg[edit]

Hi Doc, I try to be careful with the copyright status of images that I upload. I would like to review the status of the image, but just 48 hours after tagging it has been deleted. I just saw the notification now. Could you provide me with more information? Thank you Wormcast (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure no worries User:Wormcast. The journal that it was from was marked as NC thus I nominated it for deletion. They are amazingly fast here on commons. I guess the one thing we did not check was to see if the journal was originally labeled as CC BY SA and than latter changed to CC BY SA NC. Unfortunately I am not an admin here so cannot pull further details easily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, either way it had to go. A pity, that was a difficult image to find... Thanks for the follow-up -Wormcast (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Wormcast I was able to find others under an open license and I have uploaded them[4]
This search engine allows you to search for medical images under a CC BY license[5] It however does occasionally get it wrong so double checking is still required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Consent[edit]

How, Doc, do you give reviewers access to the consent documentation associated with each patient image you upload? That is, beyond the "just trust me" statement that appears on your User page, how is this formally a traceable process that would stand up to a (using American parlance) HIPAA-type audit?

This questioning is part of the broader process through which I am trying to understanding how this image uploading business can possibly can be a sustainable process, workable not just for the reliable physicians involved like yourself, but also for any that might wish to participate, but also excluding any that would seek to misuse or defraud the system.

Apart from demanding from each that submits a validated form of credentials establishing their ability to diagnose and assign the argued pathology, and keeping these on file, alongside permissions and patient consent materials likewise in order, and making these open for review—I cannot see how this is not going to explode at some point. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

So when a fellow Wikipedian launched legal attacks against me my college of physicians and surgeons reviewed my consent forms for the images I upload to Wikipedia. This was written about in part in the NYTs[6]. They were happy with what I was doing and I won the case.
My consent forms have the patients name, address, and other details. I keep a copy and put a copy in the persons chart. I am not willing to share these details with anyone other than my college / the patient in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I had no doubt/question that you would have available to you, and would avail yourself of the proper forms for your medicolegal context, or—knowing your integrity from your work and interactions here—or that you would apply these in a proper and disciplined way. That is, I, personally feel I have every reason to trust you.
This is a separate, but related matter from whether we should allow pictures at all. (You know I disagree with you on this, unless and until we create a separate category of contributors, who have verified, formal credentials. I believe that such formal credentials are absolutely essential, in the WP:OR that goes on in your evaluating your images, evaluating and keeping the images of others, etc. For that matter, same with me working on chemistry and biochemistry images. This recognition, however, is against the spirit of the place—to formally recognise expertise—and so it is safe to say I will remain in disagreement that we ought allow self-published medical images from editors.)
As I said, I have reason to choose to trust you (because your credentials are present, I have superficially checked them, and because your performance here is consistent with your presenting credentials). But just as the issue of your editing, with, hypothetically (I know you do not do this), an occasional edit left without a source, where I would not worry about the edit, so it is with your images. I trust the intellectual content, because I trust you as a physician and editing WikiProj Med contributor. So the same is true with your addition of images. If you say image X presents condition/symptom X, I am going to believe it.
I do not however extend this trust very far beyond you, in medical edits, unless I see similar reason to trust. This is true in terms of textual content and images, from you, and it is also true with regard to the matter of patient consent.
Returning to that matter. What I am trying to understand/sort: How can what is being done by the best (you, regarding your consent practices), that ought to be done by all, be institutionalised into policy, at WP, where our contributors are not restricted to experts, and where we draw editors from many tens of English-speaking nations, each with their own HIPAA-type legal requirements? How do we hope to allow medical images representing patients, not sifted through automatically by any consent and release process (as would take place if we import images from a published textbook, or other formal source)? What policies guide this now, at WP, and are they sufficient—would our policies have directed you to do what you did, with your consent forms and process, so that it directs others to do the same?
Cheers, let's continue this here, until such time as we move it to a better venue. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 14:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Side note: James, to the extent that the consent forms contain protected information such as patients' real names, they're likely subject to medical confidentiality laws. I hope that you would seek competent legal advice before disclosing the contents of any consent form, especially to Wikimedians (who are highly unlikely to have secure storage facilities for protected information). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:CCSR2011.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:CCSR2011.jpg 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

FormAllTheHides (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You could have just used "Upload a new version of this file" User talk:FormAllTheHides. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

MOTD accuracy check request[edit]

HEARTBLEND

Hi James, I hope you are well. After a recent small debacle with a MOTD animation which was factually inaccurate (File:Paso_a_paso_de_un_nudo_As_de_guía.ogv), the same group has had another animation promoted, this time medical. While the animations are perhaps beautiful, I'm a little worried now about their educational merit... would you by any chance have a couple minutes to look at File:HEARTBLEND.ogv and just verify that there are at least no glaring inaccuracies? Thanks for your time, Storkk (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Storkk for the ping. The animation is not very good. The whole heart does not "enlarge" (as show by zooming in) and "shrink" (as shown by zooming out) at the same time.
This animation is way better in its accuracy[7]
Other issues: 1) what happened to the inferior vena cava? Why no blue arrow coming out the right main pulomary trunk, why no read arrow coming out of the aorta? Now arrow going in the other two pulmonary veins
Basically it is not accurate enough for us on English WP and we also have images currently showing similar things that are more accurate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that given it wasn't fantastically wrong, I'll just let my admonishment at User talk:Lorgut stand. MOTD is such an backwater on Commons that there doesn't seem too much point to following it up further. Thanks again for your time, Storkk (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Would be good to put in place mechanisms for topic area experts to weigh in on these things before promotions occur. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree, but as far as I can tell, there is no formal process at all for a file to become MOTD. Very little review goes into it, let alone review by topic area experts. It's very different to POTD, where at least they have been vetted by going through COM:FPC. Storkk (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
If there is not enough good media for a "media of the day" maybe it should be changed to "media of the week". We only have Featured Lists on the main page on EN WP once to twice a week rather than daily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be even better to subsume it into POTD or even do away with it altogether. I don't think it is particularly useful in its current form. I think making it "Media of the week" solves only the secondary problem of having relatively few nominations; from what I can tell the larger problem is that while lots of people like having a featured media item (thus giving rise to inertia against changing the status quo), nobody (modulo one or two) really cares enough to actively nominate, promote and curate it. I may be misjudging the inertia, though... I'll think about creating a proposal to do away with MOTD. Storkk (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
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!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely,   — Jeff G. ツ 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Jeff G. thanks and have commented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)