Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:30, 14 August 2008

Hi all. Leave me a message.

Epilepsy

I have removed some of your edits to Epilepsy and discussed the changes on the Talk page. If you wish to discuss this, please use my talk page or the epilepsy one. I hope this doesn't discourage you from making future contributions. BTW: when including references, please use the new ref tags in keeping with the other references. That ensures the reference-numbering works and keeps the article consistent. Thanks. Colin° 08:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you have restored the text. I have requested third-party opinions on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. Colin° 10:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mihai cartoaje,

I find that it's great that you're looking at the primary literature and making an effort to understand it. Also, I think it's great that you're referencing the statements you add to Misplaced Pages.

Those things said, I think you've been distracted, at times, by a few smaller studies and studies done on animals. Proving, in medicine, that some thing works is, typically, a long an arduous process. One or two small studies in the grand scheme of things don't have a lot of weight as sometimes the results were by chance -- Type I error, or there were methodological problems. Animal studies sometimes are misleading. Even with a lot of testing things go wrong -- thalidomide is an example of that.

I think you need to change your approach a little bit. Consider collections such as Bandolier and the Cochrane Collaboration. Also, I suggest you read a bit about epidemiology-- Bradford Hill's paper The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? I think is classic-- and I think it explains how a lot of the thinking is done in medicine. If you're new to an area I think a textbook or review article is the place to start. If you cite the primary literature--evaluate whether it is good (e.g. Is it is a randomized controlled trial? If it isn't randomized is there a control? Was the analysis done on an intention to treat basis?)

I hope that you receive my comments as being constructive and look forward to your future contributions. Nephron  T|C 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

I agree with you on the removal of the violence section of schizophrenia, as it doesn't seem very nessicary. But I do think it's rather accurate... since I'm diagnosed with schizophrenia and can personally say that I'm almost never violent.

I see that a mediation has been filed on the dispute, anything I can help with to achieve compromise with both parties? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions to Schizophrenia

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Glen 11:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tried discussing at first, but some of the accounts that want violence statistics in the article keep making personal attacks.

And I have discussed the disputed change on the talk page: .

Please stop being silly adding a clearly unwelcome POV tag. This is nothing but edit warring, for which I've blocked you for 8h William M. Connolley 19:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

I have left a positive comment as an outside view on the RfC. To deal with the sockpuppet-situation, maybe a request for user conduct (or should I say users conduct) on DPeterson will work to eliminate the sock-puppets?

It might be a good idea if you respond to the current RfC — just give a totally honest account on how you view the situation. --Grace E. Dougle 11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am presently taking a break from editing Misplaced Pages in order to motivate myself to catch up with other things I have to do.

I have not been blocked; it was only a prank.

You are a good kind person

bless you for your kindnesses.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Kiwi (talk • contribs) 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Oops

I must've had a faulty brainwave somehow. Still, I think the rest of my comment makes sense. If we were to blank it, the warnings would be harder to see. - Mgm| 09:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Glad everyone got to know the truth. I would still volunteer for a checkuser if anyone has doubts.

Email

Are you the user that emailed me about G4? DarthGriz98 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mapractice

Your addition to medicine and psychiatry is much more suitable for placement on medical malpractice, which is where discussions about legal limitations are more likely to be notable. JFW | T@lk 07:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsure why you are accusing other editors of a conflict of interest on psychiatry. JFW | T@lk 07:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the content is notable enough for the Medicine article. The Medical malpractice article is not listed in the See also of the Medicine article. I have been editing Misplaced Pages since 2005 and I didn't know the Medical malpractice article existed.

Chupper admitted a conflict of interest in these diffs:

"That's why this field is so exciting! We're learning more and more all the time." "As a side note, this is one reason I don't understand 'anti-psychiatry.'I think a lot of people rather fight something than help make it better. If you don't like the way something is ending up, then become a part of it and help change it for the better!"

"I'm not a psychiatrist (yet)." "The ones I know also feel like the field of psychiatry still has an infinite number of developments to make. In other words, they feel like we are far from the end." "Again, I'd love to continue to discuss this, but with class loads, my own research, and work I just don't have the time." "Psychiatry, in some cases, has many problems. This is one reason I was motivated to go into this field."

Casliber admitted a conflict of interest in these diffs:

"Speaking as a psychiatrist"

"Yes I am in the profession"

--Mihai cartoaje (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that being a doctor automatically creates a conflict of interest? I suggest you stop making the same addition over & over on medicine, because so many editors have now removed it. Try the talkpage. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I provided a link to the ArbCom ruling. There are additional rulings in WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi, Mihai cartoaje I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Misplaced Pages. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits to medicine

A number of editors have opposed your perennial edit to medicine about malpractice. I would hope that you would take this a cue that it is possibly not suitable. Could I again encourage you to raise the issue on the talkpage? I otherwise face the decision of having you blocked for disruption and low-grade edit warring. That can't have been your intention. JFW | T@lk 06:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)