| Revision as of 02:43, 4 November 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,657 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:MrBill3/Archive 4) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:21, 6 November 2014 edit undoBladesmulti (talk | contribs)15,638 edits →Copyright violation/infringement: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 445: | Line 445: | ||
| :] on Misplaced Pages has a specific and well spelled out meaning. Essentially it means presenting information from ] as ]. Your personal anecdote is considered ] and is not the basis of content on WP. If reliable sources publish information that supports the assertions you have presented it can be considered for content. It is important to note that the standard for biomedical information on WP is higher that for general content. Details can be found at the guideline ]. | :] on Misplaced Pages has a specific and well spelled out meaning. Essentially it means presenting information from ] as ]. Your personal anecdote is considered ] and is not the basis of content on WP. If reliable sources publish information that supports the assertions you have presented it can be considered for content. It is important to note that the standard for biomedical information on WP is higher that for general content. Details can be found at the guideline ]. | ||
| :Regarding the reliability of WP, it is a subject of interest to me. I think the established policies and guidelines are a great tool to establish, maintain and improve the quality of the encyclopedia. There is some degree of academic study on the subject and you may find it interesting that a WP article has been published in a peer reviewed journal now. I believe it is by adhering to and enforcing the policies and guidelines WP continues to improve. I consider this important as WP is one of the predominant sources of information for a great number of people. As a note for important research and information I use WP for a general idea but always consult the listed references directly and use the search terms, authors, categories etc. as a guide in searching the published academic work. - - ] (]) 15:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | :Regarding the reliability of WP, it is a subject of interest to me. I think the established policies and guidelines are a great tool to establish, maintain and improve the quality of the encyclopedia. There is some degree of academic study on the subject and you may find it interesting that a WP article has been published in a peer reviewed journal now. I believe it is by adhering to and enforcing the policies and guidelines WP continues to improve. I consider this important as WP is one of the predominant sources of information for a great number of people. As a note for important research and information I use WP for a general idea but always consult the listed references directly and use the search terms, authors, categories etc. as a guide in searching the published academic work. - - ] (]) 15:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Copyright violation/infringement == | |||
| ] Your addition to ], ] have been removed, as it appears to have added ] material to Misplaced Pages without ] from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read ] for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''content'', such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators '''will be ]'''. ] (]) 01:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:21, 6 November 2014
| Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
| This is MrBill3's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 | MrBill3 is busy in real life and will only be here on and off and thus may not respond to messages quickly. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
One of my primary activities on WP is working on references. I frequently verify and improve references on an article that has drawn my attention. My idea of improvement involves templates and uniform formatting. I also advocate for access dates and archive dates in numeric format (YYYY-DD-MMM). In general I prefer dates on WP to be DD Mmmm YYYY with the preceding exceptions, however I follow policy (in general) from MOS.
I also do research for articles that I am interested in or upon request (as time permits). I have been granted access to the Cochrane Library, the BMJ, the Oxford University Press and HighBeam Research through the Misplaced Pages Library.
If you use a reference I have provided through these resources please include the url to the reference and appropriate credit to that resource.
ToolsI use Twinkle. Actions I perform with Twinkle are usually carefully considered and taken within articles that I have read carefully and at least perused the talk page of the article. If you have an issue with something I have done using Twinkle post on the talk page of the article or here. I use AutoWikiBrowser. Actions I perform with AutoWikiBrowser are usually considered but I may not have checked the talk page of the article. I am bold in my approach to using AutoWikiBrowser to "clean up" the format of articles and references in them. If you have an issue with something I have done using AutoWikiBrowser please post here. I use STiki. STiki is an anti-vandalism tool that I use boldly. I evaluate the text STiki presents with a basic editorial eye if it looks like a duck it gets reverted. I revert unsourced additions boldly with STiki. If you have an issue with something I have done using STiki feel free to undo my edit and if needed post discussion here.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
CoolSculpting
An article I am researching for where I will have a COI, regarding an FDA-approved Cryolipolysis device (kills fat with cold). They are in an industry that is obviously filled with a lot of scams, misleading advertising and dangerous "medical" products (read quackery) and I think any editor would rightfully question whether my article is actually representative of the source material. I was wondering if you would be interested in checking my work against the quack test once done. CorporateM (Talk) 03:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to look into it. A link to your draft would help me get a start at looking at the sources. I am taking a look at Cryolipolysis now. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Cool. You can see the interim draft I'm working on at user:CorporateM/CoolSculpting. I've mostly only used the medical journals so far (the most reliable sources) and still need to do more research on mainstream press, as well as images and wikilinks. Citation #2 provides a review of the total body of literature on the subject from a medical journal/clinical study perspective and may be useful as comparison. I'm going to leave a note about article-naming on the Talk page as a first step and keep working on the draft (you are of course welcome to edit as well if you choose). I'm trying to steer it away from medical terminology (our audience is the public), but I feel I may have gone too far. CorporateM (Talk) 21:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Amen Source Comments
I noticed that there hasn't been any activity on your post seeking comments on the Daniel Amen talk page. Since I feel it could be added and you feel that there may be a case for it to be added, maybe that is enough of a consensus to move forward with the addition for now, and then if people object then it can at least bring some activity to your post? Dmrwikiprof (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'd suggest stating on talk you are going to add and then doing so. I think the due weight is very limited and you are likely to be reverted, but who ever does so should certainly justify that on talk and that would allow you the opportunity to put forth your position. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Naturopathic medicine under 'Practice'
Hello, I see you reverted from my edit, where I deleted "often rejecting the practices of evidence based medicine." What is the evidence you have to support this claim? The citation listed does not support it. And I have supplied other citations elsewhere (which have so far still been removed from the page) that show evidence-based medicine is incorporated into naturopathic practice.Take, for example, this article: http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/Content/29/2001-09_Profile_of_a_Profession_Naturopathic_Practice.pdf pages 14-19. I look forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyfischer76 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- See the ref already in the article added to that sentence. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the publication linked to above, note it is 13 years old, simply a report which describes itself as "The following case study is an effort to test a model", not peer reviewed, published as the opinions of the authors only and the "model" being tested is the work of the two lead authors pretty weak as a reliable source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Myofascial Release under "Effectiveness"
Hi MrBill3, thanks for your Suggested References comment on the talk page. I'm not sure if you saw my edit to your previous comment (this is my first time editing a Misplaced Pages article, so please bear with me!). Just in case you didn't see it there, I'm pasting it here too. I said (with minor changes):
Please examine my sources as they are all much more reliable as well as more recent than the 2011 ASA citation currently published on the article. That citation was based on a single, poorly designed study of smaller populations than my citations. That study was not blinded or controlled and the source influencing ASA's ruling was an abstract from a conference paper, not a trial published in a journal.
My cited trials are different. All four were randomized, controlled and blinded (either single or double). All were published in peer-reviewed journals. The links I originally included were to PubMed, but I've replaced them with these direct links:
http://www.bodyworkmovementtherapies.com/article/S1360-8592(13)00074-0/fulltext
http://www.thefootjournal.com/article/S0958-2592(14)00013-3/fulltext
http://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(11)00914-2/fulltext -- FULL TEXT AVAILABLE WITHOUT SUBSCRIPTION
http://www.bodyworkmovementtherapies.com/article/S1360-8592(11)00022-2/fulltext
If you'll be willing to reconsider Twinkle's automatic rejection, I'd be most appreciative. At the very least, I think the third link should replace the current citation, since full text is freely available and it's a good study. (But honestly, I think they should all be used. :o) Thanks, Marlene Mayman (Marlenemayman) Marlene Mayman 08:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlenemayman (talk • contribs)
Marc Siefer
Please revisit Marc Seifer.. I just boiled down the entry to what is supportable. --Lfrankblam (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Untitled
Hello MrBill3,
Thank you for your message. I want you to understand that the tone of my comments are presented with great concern for children who are brain-injured, and their families.
You addressed my input by saying, "...you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article." I find this very interesting since the input on "The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential" is not only not neutral, but it is 99% negative and fault-finding.
As I mentioned in my post, I am the mother of a child who's life was saved by The Institutes. I do not work, in any way, for this amazing organization. As I could see that you are an ICU nurse you may have conflicts that are common to the medical profession in regards to The Institutes. They are used to these types of accusations. If one has never been to visit or learn from them it is hard to believe what they have done to save and improve the lives of children with brain-injury. They also do not use conventional or popular treatment methods, although others who have challenged or had a falling out with them have gone on to set up their own organization using methods from The Institutes.
One other comment you may or may not have known, MrBill3, is that when I was in college from 2007-2011, our instructors told us not to use WIKIPEDIA for research or references. We were to use our school's library, which also had access to the Harvard library system. The deemed WIKIPEDIA as unreliable. I wonder if you have heard this from others?
The reason I contacted WIKIPEDIA in the first place was that I am doing research for my book and "Googled" The Institutes for pictures, when I came across the WIKIPEDIA content. The content, as I said, is far from "neutral" and very damaging to other parents and professionals who may be interested in helping children with brain-injury, and in my humble opinion should reflect both merits and faults of the organization, rather than the negative content therein.
Infavorofiahop (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)11/3/2014
- My conflict of interest notice was based on both your username and your disclosure of personal involvement with the subject of the article. The text of the notice is generated by a template, more detailed information on the policy can be found at WP:COI a link to which is provided by the template. You may think and are free to assert that you have no conflict of interest. I think it is a question that would be viewed in different ways by different editors.
- I think the question of a conflict of interest on the part of a medical professional and alternative treatment proponents/practitioners has been adequately discussed in a number of forums archives of which can be found by a search. Personally I have no conflict of interest with the subject of that article. If you feel otherwise a discussion can be brought to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. A reading of the previous related discussions would likely demonstrate that to be inappropriate.
- Neutral point of view on Misplaced Pages has a specific and well spelled out meaning. Essentially it means presenting information from reliable sources as due. Your personal anecdote is considered original research and is not the basis of content on WP. If reliable sources publish information that supports the assertions you have presented it can be considered for content. It is important to note that the standard for biomedical information on WP is higher that for general content. Details can be found at the guideline Identifying reliable sources (medicine).
- Regarding the reliability of WP, it is a subject of interest to me. I think the established policies and guidelines are a great tool to establish, maintain and improve the quality of the encyclopedia. There is some degree of academic study on the subject and you may find it interesting that a WP article has been published in a peer reviewed journal now. I believe it is by adhering to and enforcing the policies and guidelines WP continues to improve. I consider this important as WP is one of the predominant sources of information for a great number of people. As a note for important research and information I use WP for a general idea but always consult the listed references directly and use the search terms, authors, categories etc. as a guide in searching the published academic work. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation/infringement
Your addition to Talk:Ayurveda, User:MrBill3/sandbox have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)