User talk:Doc James/Archive 89

Can you help me understand this?

Hi James, just a quick question: In the Signpost you say regarding the Knight Foundation Gift: "I supported its approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board". According to the Board Minutes, you not only approved the gift, but you were the one who introduced the motion to do so. How does this work? How is decided who puts such a motion to the vote? And how and by whom were you pressured to put such a motion forward? Thank you for further transparency regarding this issue--2A02:8109:8A00:334:7469:4827:969B:1080 (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motions are not necessarily put forwards by the people who come up with them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get that. So who and how were you pressured to put the motion forward? I am asking because this really troubles me, and I think that this kind of mobbing / pressure should have no place in our movement. Please, be so kind and share your experience on this! And, because the Board is such a small, yet vital body, I think it is essential that you name names here - so that we as the community can make decissions when it comes to Board governance.--2A02:8109:8A00:334:F8E2:72F2:85E4:D69A (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this sort of behavior should have no place in our movement. I think one thing we could do to give the community elected trustees the independence they need to take strong stances is to actually elect them such that only the electorate can remove them during their terms in office (with the exception of course being for "actual" cause). The other thing we could do is videotape board meeting to decrease this sort of pressure being applied. Ideally we should do both IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like great ideas. But why won't you go into any details on who pressured you and how? I think it is not fair of you to make a general claim that you were treated like this and than not give any specifics (which would allow the current board members to counter you claims, or admit them, or whatever).--2A02:8109:8A00:334:91FE:E48D:FEED:D599 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One board member stating that they wish to remove other board members I believe applies pressure and is a fairly specific example. This of course happened during a discussion and therefore written evidence is lacking. The evidence I have provided hopefully does support the fact that the board did disagree over transparency regarding long term strategy which was the main point I was trying to make. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere [1] I was connecting the dots. -DePiep (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are some interesting documents that will hopefully help connect a few more dots.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Details

When I learned about the Knight grant and the negotiations that led up to it, I took the apparently controversial position that community discussion and involvement should occur early in the process for a new and what appeared to be extensive project. By extensive I mean that cost estimates were in the 10s of millions of dollars and it involved the creation of what appeared to be a new sister site. I made the same recommendations for openness to our ED and the Head of Product in October of 2015. Open and transparent discussion obviously did not occur and are now only beginning following my removal.
Why did I vote for the grant? I am not known for doing things I don't agree with, but I was under pressure and was attempting to vote strategically. In retrospect I made an error. Jimmy Wales had made comments about removing other board members during the days before the Knight grant vote. I believed that my opposing at that point in time would have changed nothing (because there were not enough opposing votes to block it), and doing so would have led to my removal.
Why did I not only vote for the motion but propose it? Other board members recommended ~~that Dariusz and~~ I put forward the motion. At the time I saw the suggestion as innocuous but in hindsight it may have been done in part to give protection against a community backlash, since we are both respected community members. We were also the ones who had raised concerns about the project underlying this grant as well as other issues at the Foundation.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James, can you say more about what happened to cause you (a) to support the Knight Foundation grant, but more importantly (b) to propose that it be accepted? I find the latter, in particular, very troubling. I understand why you decided to support, given the pressure and given that your view that your vote would have made no difference. (I disagree with that, though: dissenting votes are important for the record.)

But that you ended up proposing it is of more concern. You wrote: "Other board members recommended that Dariusz and I put forward the motion." Can you say who they were, and did they say why they wanted you to do that? It seems creepy to persuade the very person who disagrees to be the one to propose. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not explicitly stated why we were to put forward the proposal. This was at the end of three days of meetings.

Yes in retrospect I agree I made a error and agree a single oppose vote would have made a difference even if it would not have changed the outcome. It; however, is interesting to see this vote published on Jan 14th, 2016 but other votes that occurred during the same meetings missing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing you for any of this, because I know you were under pressure. It's the pressure I'm interested in, because anyone familiar with you knows that you're very independent-minded, which is one of the reasons people trust you. So if this has happened to you, it could happen to anyone, and that is not a good situation to have on the board, where we need people who will question and say no if necessary. Can you say who suggested that you and Dariusz propose the motion? Also, which other votes are missing? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember exactly who initially proposed that we put forwards the motion. One person made the recommendation and a few others agreed to it.

We had two other votes, of which at least one was official, were I was the only one in opposition. These are not published. I would be happy to see the WMF release them. But it is up to them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why they would publish some votes but not others? Is it standard practice to leave certain things out of the minutes? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if leaving certain votes out of the meeting minutes is standard or not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacking

Holy cow thanks for posting that link to the grant application itself - pages 10-13 are especially crucial. The KE sounds it is some kind of "knowledge generating engine" based off Wikidata. That is interesting if that is something WMF wants to do, but them saying that it is by Wikipedia and especially that they intend to "Develop prototypes for evolving Wikipedia.org, which will become the home of the Knowledge Engine" (5th bullet on page 12 of the pdf)- without the community's consent is fucking outrageous. Fucking. Outrageous. Am cross-posting this to Jimbo's talk page, without the cursing. Or maybe with it. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what to do about it. I'm reminded of your post a couple of weeks ago. For example, could the WMF be persuaded to set up a membership organization for users so that when we elect someone to the board, we are actually electing them, not asking that they be appointed? If we did want to set up a membership organization, how do we go about it? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am laughing a little as I had no idea if anybody read that or cared about it, much less remembered it. I reckon a proposal at the Village Pump would be the way to start "union organizing" as it were. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read it carefully. It's a very good description of the situation, and depressing to read. We all know it, but seeing it laid out like that ...

I think before even proposing something at the pump we should do some legal research. I'm just not sure where to start. We want the Foundation to be what I believe is called a "membership organization" so that we can elect people to the board, people who can't be dismissed without cause. Before we ask for that (and the Foundatioh could say no, but if enough people ask for it, they might find that difficult), we need to know what it entails. Would we need to collect names and dues before someone counts as a member, or is it enough that they edit or edit for a certain length of time? I'm guessing that we would need to collect names and dues; otherwise the membership would have no real limit.

I wonder whether we have any Wikipedian lawyers who know about non-profits and could give informal advice. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask around. My sense is that in this kind of dynamic we will need to have an entity - something like a union - to leverage change, but yes maybe if we pester enough they would yield. With regard to members... I don't know about anonymous users being actual members of WMF (as in having contractual rights)... serious privacy issues there, I think. But some kind of union or a non-profit "WP Editors, Inc" could be a legal entity and hold membership shares or units. But I will ask around! Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At WPMEDF we base membership on two criteria. 1) activity related to improving our medical content 2) an expression of interest.[3] We do not charge a membership fee and our lawyer felt this was fine.

We have these efforts here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, there is some background at meta:Wikimedia Foundation membership controversy. The Foundation was apparently originally set up as a membership organization, then decided to change in 2006 without consulting the members, which membership organizations are obliged to do. But there is doubt that they set it up properly when they first started, so we don't know what their early legal status was.

The point now is whether we could persuade them to become a membership organization again or, if they were that originally, to reinstate our membership. That would mean, among other things, that we could elect board members, not have them appointed.

Joining a union (such as the National Writers Union?) or setting up an editors' group is a separate issue, I think. But that's where advice from a lawyer would be very helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking to folks off-Wiki and will continue to do so and will let you know what I learn. The Talk page of that petition James linkedto is interesting. Apparently under FL law, you have to keep a register of RL name and addresses of members, and this was a big issue re privacy, for folks back then. Lots of garbage analysis on that page but some useful stuff. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to that history article, SV. Useful. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that privacy concerns were the reason people were wary of membership. Privacy keeps coming back to bite us. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That basic value makes this a weird, weird place. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the notion of working with the National Writers Union is interesting. Probably a bunch of the freelancers who do paid editing are members too! Strange bedfellows, perhaps. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James I have never understood WPMEDF. I will ask more about that later. You said there is an attorney for it? Would be willing to talk with him or her about WMF membership and see what is possible as part of this exploratory work? Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The attorney who was working with us has had some health issue. We will thus need to pick someone else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Jytdog too. [4] SarahSV ^(talk) 21:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, I opposed the idea of a membership organisation as too much legal overhead, but I no longer think that's the case, and would support one now. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hand washing

Pointing out to the discussion in [5]. Hope to see you join in :) Anthere (talk)

K Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brainsway

Hi, In the Brainsway article it says: In January 2013, Brainsway received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and from Health Canada to market its Deep TMS device in the United States and in Canada as a treatment for depression in cases where people failed to make a recovery following drug treatment.[12][13] Evidence to support this use is tentative as of 2013 no high quality evidence is available.[1]

This is totally untrue - As I added (and you removed), there was a multi center trial confirming the use of Brainsway Deep TMS for depression treatment. I added citations as well.

Why did you restore the erroneous content?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasafy (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MEDRS. We try to use secondary sources.

Also what is your relationship with this company? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Botched (tv series) - Quality of the script

Hi Doc. All the best in the new year. A fellow translator (in 'real' life, not here on Wikipedia) needed help translating "You have what's called vascular blush, which is basically when the skin is very stressed", from an episode of Botched. I cautioned her against taking it 100% seriously, seeing that it is just a (ir)reality show, with no obligation to be rigourous with the terminology and definitions in the script [00:34:16]. Is that (mine) a fair assessment? Please feel free to email me if you feel this could be otherwise compromising. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. Vascular blush is a CT angio funding. I imagine they just mean red skin but the wording they use does not seem correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. Thanks for your time. Appreciated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prose over bulleted list for Dapsone? I can get behind that.

Hey there. I appreciate you preferring prose to a bulleted list, and since this is clearly your area of expertise, I'm happy to accede. That said, when I changed things to the list format, it was because several of the paragraph-sentences in the section contained unrelated data, while different paragraph-sentences contained related data, and I was trying to organize the contents so that there was a consensus of peer-facts. If you prefer the prose that strongly, could you please edit it so that it makes more logical sense? I would do it myself, but I am soooo bad at the concensus-building arts that it would just seem like an edit-war, something I am loathe to spend time on.

Riventree (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks will take a look again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Riventree (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying thanks

Doc -- Thank you for being a persuasive, devoted, convincing, effective advocate of our common enterprise on Wikimedia. It's helping. And thank you for your efforts to improve world health. I learned late of the drama related to the Board. Oh, well. There are always clubs that don't want someone to be a member. Too bad; I had more confidence in this club precisely because you were on it. Hope you are okay. Your permanent ally at WM-DC. -- econterms (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Econterms thanks for your words of support. It is unfortunate that it required my removal to force an open discussion of the Knowledge engine and long time strategy. IMO a couple of changes could have prevented much of what has transpired:

First the movement needs to "actually" elect board members such that only the electorate can remove them during their term in office (with the exception of course being for "actual" cause). This would allow community elected trustees the independence they need to take strong stances.
We need transparency by default. There of course may be situations where a degree of secrecy is required but it should only be invoked for specific and clearly defined reasons that justify it.

I guess the question is can we get the WMF realigned with the movement? Comments by an excredibly well respected departing staffer that "Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent those values in a volunteer capacity at this time" makes it clear that we have our work cut out for us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

Special report: New internal documents raise questions about the origins of the Knowledge Engine

In focus: An in-depth look at the special report's newly revealed documents

News and notes: Another WMF departure

In the media: Jeb Bush swings at Wikipedia and connects

Featured content: This week's featured content

Traffic report: A river of revilement

Blog: Wikimedia Foundation removes The Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law requirements

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying "hi"

I saw the Tourette Syndrome Association changed its name last year, so (for some stupid reason) thought it my obligation to update the "suite". Obviously, considering recent events (not only yours, but also Jyt's), I am even less interested in spending time here than I was before the recent events, but I have been aware. Not back, but wanted to say hi and lend my support, for what it's worth. Best to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:SandyGeorgia great to see you and many thanks for your support. Your efforts here are much missed.

With all the recent events it has become a little harder to muddle on with improving content. Those reading Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) need us so I continue to return.

And I still have hope that we can realign the WMF with the rest of the movement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis B

Is there a reason you changed "fatigue" to "feeling tired"? This isn't Simple English Wikipedia. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We try to write the leads here in easy to understand English per WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Is it ok if I change it to "tiredness"? It's more grammatical. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure that sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help for Dr. Bose Article

Hi James, I personally know Dr. Bose, and he requested me to improve this article. Just added back the personal data in the article. Need input from you to make this part proper. Any help is appreciated. Please don't remove the whole part, just comment. I am asking for your help. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utsavde39 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of spammy. And it appears he started the article himself. This is sort of frowned upon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James, will change it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utsavde39 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pericarditis

Dear hope everything is fine. I hope to be on the right page and follow the correct procedure.

in looking to pericarditis I found causes infectious the following statement: The most common viral pathogen has traditionally been considered to be coxsackievirus based on studies in children from the 1960s, but recent data suggest that adults are most commonly affected with cytomegalovirus, herpesvirus, and HIV. The literature quoted is not at all recent and for CMV, it refers to a single study. This statement taken from the respected uptodate is not in agreement with Medscape or other authoritative sites (cleveland clinic) and with most recent review: Acute Pericarditis by LESLIE E. TINGLE, MD; DANIEL MOLINA, MD; and CHARLES W. CALVERT, DO, Baylor Family Medicine Residency at Garland, Garland, Texas Am Fam Physician. 2007 Nov 15;76(10):1509-1514.. where they say: Viruses: coxsackievirus A and B, hepatitis viruses, human immunodeficiency virus, influenza, measles virus, mumps virus, varicella virus. I have the opinion that the information is overstating the role of some agents (CMV, HIV, HSV), misrepresenting the current epidemiology and should be revised. may I kindly ask you to have a look? If... I will proceed to change it

Thanks Giuseppe

Torreano61 (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will take a look. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hormonal contraception

As to the anty-implantation effect and its contribution to the effectiveness of progestin-only contraception: B. Katzung, Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, page 727 , Pharmacologic effects: A. Mechanism of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janusz M 87 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which edition? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 20 February 2016‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janusz M 87 (talk • contribs)

Discussion

Some important discussions going on:

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Special report: Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of Lila Tretikov

Op-ed: Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month

Featured content: This week's featured content

Traffic report: Super Bowling

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Blog: Antonin Scalia and the editor tracking his legacy

VICE/Motherboard request

Hey, I'm a reporter with Motherboard over at VICE. I wrote this article: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedias-secret-google-competitor-search-engine-is-tearing-it-apart. Can you email me? jason.koebler@vice.com Jkoebler (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Sure sent you an email. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Equipes usam técnicas de combate à dengue em Brasília.jpg

Hi Doc James. How come that you did not attribute this photograph used as Figure 8 in a way it is usually done for CC-BY images? --Leyo 01:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we state it is under an open license as is everything in the paper and we state it is from Commons. You can see the full attribution when you click on the image and it says "© Copyright by Società Italiana di Otorinolaringologia e Chirurgia Cervico-Facciale"

By the way I just noticed an error was introduced when it was moved over to pubmed commons. Pubmed commons states it is CC BY NC ND which is not true. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking isn't possible in the PDF version. IMHO omitting the attribution it is a copyvio. Mentioning nothing but Commons as a source is what noob journalists often do. --Leyo 19:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC) PS. I've just noticed that there are two different Figure 8 in the PDF version. I was referring to the photograph with the guppy.[reply]

I sent them all the details. They put the final copy together. Full attribution is available on pubmed. You can see it here [6]. When you click on copyright you get "© Copyright by Società Italiana di Otorinolaringologia e Chirurgia Cervico-Facciale" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes just realizing that there are some errors in attribution. And yes agree that it is not sufficient. I will speak with them and see if it is possible to fix it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the html version simple links to commons http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/562/562 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. I am not familiar with this journal/this publisher, but from the journals I know, authors get a PDF proof prior to publication. --Leyo 01:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will look in a week and try to figure it out. Thanks for pointing it out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leyo Okay looked at the email trail. Initially there was going to be no images due to them not being of high enough quality. I requested images and they relented.

I looked at the proofs and noticed the problem you raised and I requested "Can we add the authors to the images rather than just Wikimedia Commons in this file?" Mar 10 2014. This was obviously not done :-(

I have re requested it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been given a "no" unfortunately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are ready to take the responsibility for the copyvio, then? It might be a good idea if you retained their reply. --Leyo 13:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The journal has folded. And I would describe it as borderline but definitely agree it should be better than it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honourable mention

	Lead Writing Award
	To Doc James, for some nice work on leads of medical articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Casliber :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA status for Ebola

Hi! Do you think the Ebola page has potential to be a good article? Could you modify it for that? I'd like to see it on the list of GA as the disease really has significance to be well explained to the general public. Thanks! ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 15:41 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Still requires some work but yes has the potential. I am away right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

Special report: WMF in limbo as decision on Tretikov nears

Op-ed: Backward the Foundation

Traffic report: Of Dead Pools and Dead Judges

Blog: Wiki Loves Africa brings the continent’s fashion to the world

Arbitration report: Arbitration motion regarding CheckUser & Oversight inactivity

Featured content: This week's featured content

Technology report: Tech news in brief

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP NB

Regarding Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation), how would you like me to proceed? If you don't want what QG is saying about you to be in a Wikipedia article (I agree that he is only telling part of the story), then I will proceed with the BLP report. If you are fine with it I will be happy to withdraw the report. Your choice: I just want you to be treated fairly (something that has been in rather short supply lately). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Guy Macon. I do believe that my "internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees." Not the only factor but simply part of the reason. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

interesting

[7] leaving this (in case you haven't seen it)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks. It is an amazing time line. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response please

Would you please respond here? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks just arrived home. Will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]