User talk:Zad68/Archive 2013 Jul

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Kratom article talk

Please review my post on consistency and fairness in the Kratom article in the area of sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitragyna_speciosa#Staying_consistent_with_Sources_.28Intro.29 Thanks ThorPorre (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2013

Please see the discussion on the talk page of this article regarding your edits. I disagree with most of your edits so please discuss them. ThorPorre (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, Thor. I'll continue the discussion at the article Talk page. Zad68 13:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope that you will still be consistent in arguing that tanguay is not a reliable source for medical claims now that someone is claiming it is (as long as those claims are against kratom). ThorPorre (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I wrote my reply there before seeing your comment here. Zad68 22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

CiteULike

Hi I have tried to reply on the medical talk page but I never get the post saved. CiteULike is initially on online research paper library and each member who can join for free can compile their own library of research papers. papers are added by uploading using pmid or doi. There are also various special interest groups you can join or create to sahre research papers regarding a specific topic. The autism group currently has some 582 papers, and those who read the wikipedia article may like to find more indepth research regarding a specific issue which may be already included in the CiteULike collection of thye can add more papers to add to both CiteUlike and Wikipedia. dolfrog (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog, thanks for the link. CiteULike does look like an useful resource for people interested in researching medical topics. A link to a research group might be useful at an article Talk page to direct editors to the articles. The article Talk page is really where a link like that should go. Zad68 14:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the start on the Giant Cell article

From the talk page, it appears that a school kid started it. The faculty adviser account seems to not exist, nor does the original writer, from sparse searching. Meanwhile, it is a worthy article to clean up. I'm far from an SME and I'm also rubbish at prose. I can fix a sentence or even paragraph, but I'm still not proficient at primary re-write prose, to put it mildly.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up too hard! Yes it looks like a school project. If you're looking for editors for the article, and you're not willing to step up, advertise it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology. I see some good editors I know active there. And hey why not try doing it yourself?? Writing is fun, once you really get into the sources. Read the sources and then you'll want to write the article, because you'll want to show off how much you now know. Zad68 13:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Not beating myself up, just noting one limiting factor, I'm rubbish on prose, but working on it as time allows and I do learn quickly. However, I'm also primary care for my 83 year old father, who suffers from CHF, ESRD, vascular dementia, osteoarthritis and is as unstable as the Demon core, though in medical terms, not in physics. I literally don't have time and I dread when I would have time. Hopefully, if time permits tomorrow, I'll get to the suggested location and request help there. WOULD that I had the time to address even one article! But, after family last, duty first, I'm retired, family first.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

DRN

what a mess. I'm going to step away for awhile and hope that an experienced 3rd party steps in. -- Scray (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly... On the plus side, I see at least one DR "heavy hitter" is making edits at the DRN page, hoping to get some intervention. Zad68 14:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
A train wreck in slow motion. It's probably best if all of the interventions come from uninvolved parties. -- Scray (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI because you're involved, please note the following ANI discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_and_intervention. Zad68 15:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I can hear something whizzing through the air... -- Scray (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I did not expect the boomerang to land at the feet of "Ryanspir". You can't make this stuff up. Have a great weekend. -- Scray (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep, unexpected, and rather sad to find out, actually, that he'd take an action that I can't give any explanation for other than an attempt at retribution. Back to the article work I should be doing... have a great weekend too. Zad68 20:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Timeline of Sun Myung Moon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Timeline of Sun Myung Moon, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, it's been a while since I've looked at those articles but if I get a chance I'll review it. Zad68 16:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

a barnstar from Scray dated 03:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list

Appreciated... tomorrow's another day! Zad68 03:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ciao

Thanks for the kind words Zad. Yes, we've always had a good working relationship here and it's good to meet up. :-) Take care, 86.161.251.139 (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Great to see you 'round again then! Zad68 18:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
In response (I think) to your talk page query: in PubMed you'll find publication type ("Article types") filters for both "systematic reviews" and "meta-analysis" (terminological explanations in Box 1 here [1]).
Hey, now I know how to do smilies... Cheers, 86.161.251.139 (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
See the learnin' goes both ways here! Zad68 19:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Yup 86.161.251.139 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Maternal Antibody Related Autism for the Autism and Causes of Autism articles

I am wondering if you hae any problem with an edit to put Maternal Antibody Related Autism in the articles.

There is a new paper out identifying the antigens. They are all involved in neurodevelopment. The pathogenic effects of the antibodies are suspected

About 1/4 of autism cases can be linked ot maternal antibodies accoerding to the researchers who have identified them.

There is a TIME magazine article out. I erealize TIME is not a secondary peer reviewed source but I've cited such sources so manytimes already, I am kind of tired. You can find them on PubMed. So can DBrodbeck, whose objections to the edit seem to me to be baseless, at least in the past, maybe now he will rethink it.

If there is an objection please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.133.90 (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have PMIDs for the specific review papers you are talking about, please post them at the relevant article Talk pages. Thanks... Zad68 17:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I hope ypou do not mind me joining the discussion. I put "Maternal Antibody Related Autism" in the pubmed search engine, which returned 8 articles including 4 reviews, all of which can be found in this collection Autism - Maternal Antibody Related. dolfrog (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Not minding your joining at all. However, the peer review is of a primary study. There has been no studies to verify results. Consider the later lesson of primary reporting, we'd still have neutrinos that travel faster than light in spite of possessing mass. The reality was that there were problems in the observing apparatus that was suggested by a minority of reviewers that coincided with the discovery of fiber optics issues that delayed communication between links of the observational apparatus and the source unit. The latter coming after several other observers did not observe the same issue with their semi-offline stations that were only listening and not sending. I suggest you put the links in the talk page and let consensus of knowledgeable persons consider if it is not simply derived from the initial study. I suggest WP:EXCEPTIONAL for guidance. Exceptional claims require exceptional proofs/evidences/consensus in the community proclaiming such. That is science, not peer reviewing a sparsely populated expert group and non-SME types review and slap a stamp on it. Some kids managed to game that system to acquire a PhD after a failing grade to gain a PhD. So, that game doesn't even come close to work any longer. Or we sell PhD's at McDonalds.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to both Dolfrog and Wzrd1 for the comments. I suggest if we want to discuss these sources any further, we should do it at the appropriate article Talk pages, which I have watchlisted. Thanks... Zad68 02:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Start Snuggle

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail(talk • work), Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to post a reminder that this discussion will be happening in about 24 hours. If you haven't already used Snuggle, I recommend giving it a try before the meeting. I'll be in #wikimedia-office connect a half hour early to answer any questions you have. --EpochFail(talk • work) 16:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

CST

I have re-reverted the change in the lead of Craniosacral therapy. Please enter into the discussion before changing. The balance of this article has been a topic of dispute, and attempts to change the balance should be discussed. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I've joined the Talk page discussion. Zad68 12:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Zad, Just a word of thanks for your efforts on the Transcendental Meditation talk page in regard to the review of sources. I made additional comments to the very nice chart you had created and if you ever have the time or the inclination, I'd be happy to work with you on completing the chart and a review of the sources (excluding the medical sources-which have been discussed at length without much resolution) and upgrading sources as needed. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Keith, I've got a few other things that are higher priority for me right now but I appreciate the notice. Zad68 18:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk in Cancer

I did use Talk, why didn't you before making such radical, incorrect, mis using the source text changes?32cllou (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about this revert? I see I am now one of five editors (three at the article and two at this discussion you started) who do not think the revert was problematic. See WP:BRD, this is a very typical editing pattern on Wikipedia. Discussion is now continuing at the article Talk page as is normal. Zad68 00:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

My concern has more to do with the pattern of abuse and collusion than failings in the subject Cancer. Fixing the underlying problem is tantamount to improving a lead paragraph (currently not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, and the utilized references).

Please strive to follow you own "Rules of Content", in particular: The best defense against bad content is good content. In fact it's probably the only defense. The Wikipedia Catch-22: You'll do your best content work on articles for subjects you know little about and don't particularly care about. But then, of course, you won't be particularly motivated to work on such articles. You don't have to respect the subject of the article you're working on, but you do have to respect the sources.32cllou (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

PS, you should have referred me to the ANI board. I hope to read that old book, and attract more eyes first.32cllou (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate my "rules of content" ! I see the reverting at Cancer has stopped and the discussion is continuing at the article Talk page, which is how it should work. Let's continue the content discussion there. Zad68 14:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Complaint made against you at ANI

Hi,

I filed a complaint you were acting in bad faith in reverting my edits to Talk Autism re Maternal Antibody Related Autism

Basically I say you do not respond to the content suggestion, you just revert it based on personal feelings against me.

I think the history proves this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.221.130 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I see the ANI discussion here (third time's the charm!) and have commented there. Zad68
For posterity: At that third ANI discussion covering the IP and Autism, it was determined that the IP's disruptive involvement at the articles wasn't being handled adequately by reverting alone and we had to semi-protect the article Talk pages. Zad68 14:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

PR

Hi Zad, I know you're busy and we haven't met before, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at/reviewing a medicine-related article I've been working on. I haven't edited in medical areas before and, though I've read all the relevant guidelines I want to make sure I'm on the right track. It's at Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome if you're willing. If not - I totally understand, thank you anyways! All the best, Keilana|Parlez ici 18:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keilana, I'm honored that you thought to ask me! I see it has 20 refs and about 13k readable prose size, that's not too overwhelming to review. I'll do it in the next day or so and put my comments at the article Talk, happy to do it.Zad68 18:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, thank you so much! I really appreciate it! Keilana|Parlez ici 19:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Low back pain article

I was just looking at the lede and considering how to better organize it and add in some references when I saw an alert that you were working on it. Thanks for the help! I'll check back later to see if I can help further with it.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am actively trying to bring it to GA. I'm probably 80% done, my intent is to submit it as a GA nomination by the end of this weekend. I have about 2 more sources I need to use and then a few rounds of copyediting - there's a lot of duplication and the pathophysiology section is far too big. Thanks for the notice! Zad68 20:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
If I re-do the lede or other portions, I'll sandbox them for your opinion, if you agree. I'm not great at prose, but am working on it and would love to take a tangled article and make it at least A grade, if not GA. That said, I also have a conflict of interest as being one suffering from chronic lower back pain, my wife as well, both secondary to degenerative disc disease. So, a review is required, just to ensure I don't move into POV land for a change. But, I'm also quite conversant in medicine, know A&P to proficient level, pharmacology to levels conversant with both physicians and pharmacists, with rare corrections, pathophysiology quite proficiently and most importantly, know when to both call for professional medical assistance and how to defer to such assistance. I've been rather well trained in extremely advanced medicine for a layman, courtesy of the US DoD, due to duty requirements. A physician, I am far from, but conversant with at a professional level, much to all, save former military's surprise. I am rather good at "Goobering it down" as needed, though for encyclopedic content, I'd have to avoid my more colorful language, such as "Checking for Sea Monkeys in the water, then test with this for this"...Wzrd1 (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
If you'd like to give your article development chops a workout (and hey isn't that what we're all here for anyway?), why not take your knowledge base and apply it to a high-importance bare-bones stub that needs to get off the ground? Here is a list to scan through for ideas for articles to work on. How about Glucose cycle - High-importance article that is entirely unreferenced. Failure to thrive is a basic pediatric concept and it's barely more than a stub. Pharyngitis is closer to GA but needs work. Lots to do here... Zad68 03:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Morgellons ANI

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

BHD

Hey Zad! I'm not totally done with all of your comments but I've left some questions and responses on the talk page. I'd love if you could take a look at them when you have time. Thanks again! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 21:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Good improvements to the sourcing. I'll have a go at a little copyediting over the next few days if that'd be OK with you? Zad68 21:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! And yes please! A copyedit sounds fantastic, I need to step back before I can copyedit and I'm not quite ready for that. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 21:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Great, I may have to ask you to email me a source or two if I can't get them myself. I'm leaving for the day but should be back online later this weekend. Have a great one! Zad68 21:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:78.101.50.213

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User talk:78.101.50.213, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Glaisher [talk] 08:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason

Hi there Zad. :-) I hope you are enjoying your summer. I have replied to your message on my talk page (see my talk page). I am messaging you here regarding another issue regarding your suggestion of adding a brain scan image to the article. The image you are talking about did used to be in our ADHD article - the reason that it was removed can be seen here Talk:Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/Archive_12#Suspect_image.--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes replied at your User Talk. Thanks for the link, I'll review. Zad68 01:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearer skies

Seems like a few stormclouds have dissipated. While we can never get time back, it's nice to see sunnier skies. I think the process is necessarily fair, even though that means it can be time-consuming. As long as we give one another the benefit of the doubt, things won't wear us down. Thanks for your efforts. -- Scray (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks for this note. No worries, your username is one of the ones I'm most often happy to see show up on my watchlist. My experience is that the the processes here most often produce the correct result, although they take a lot longer and lot more work than we'd like. You and I are both rowing in the same direction here, just sometimes we're a bit out of sync. With a bit of good faith and patience it gets corrected (and I've definitely got an eye in the mirror in stating that!). Zad68 17:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
In RL I've dealt with a LOT of personnel issues, and have learned how important is for the process to be as blameless as is practical. I was relieved to see your edit on BW's talk page, and anticipated the outcome, but also know it's important to demonstrate good faith concurrently. I know you invest much more in the project than I, and am very glad you're willing to do so. My hope is to have more time soon to invest in some specific articles, and stay away from the drama. I've already scaled back my attention to RD/S. -- Scray (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Article content work is an effective antidote to drama. I've found that often the very best "revenge" that I can take when I get annoyed about some silliness is simply to turn my back on it for a bit and go work on a completely different article. Are you interested in helping to bring Lyme disease to GA? That was where I was thinking about heading next. Zad68 19:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure. I gather that we both have excellent access to the literature, so I think it's just a matter of dividing tasks to avoid duplication of effort. By section, perhaps? -- Scray (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I have excellent indirect access, but I somehow manage to get my hands on what I need, usually! I really wish the WP:COCHRANE accounts would come through soon. Dividing by section sounds good. There's a lot of content already in the article but the sourcing really needs to be updated and pruned. I probably won't be able to start until later this week, realistically, but will hope to start or join in with you there soon. Zad68 20:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2013_Jul"