| Revision as of 05:50, 17 June 2015 edit96.52.0.249 (talk) →Wiki Project Med Foundation: correction← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:28, 17 June 2015 edit undoAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,803 edits →Your most recent response plus....: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
| Mike. | Mike. | ||
| ::Ref does mention chronic pain. Stating pain is close enough I guess. There was no justification in the edit summary for the change. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | ::Ref does mention chronic pain. Stating pain is close enough I guess. There was no justification in the edit summary for the change. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Your most recent response plus.... == | |||
| Ok, thank you for responding to my questions at Kombucha and particularly for responding with the following diff: | |||
| # It appears that by your inclusion of my arguments in your reply (which only show in the diff, not in your reply on the TP) you are validating (agreeing with) my arguments despite the criticisms and/or incivility toward me by certain editors during the debate? | |||
| 2. How were you able to harvest my prior comments in that same diff? I never knew we had such a feature where we could harvest prior posts in a discussion and include them in a diff without inclusion in the reply itself. Is it an admin thing? | |||
| 3. Re: RCT - I was under the impression that inherent beneficial properties and the mechanisms that cause a particular action in natural products (such as the inherent properites in a coffee bean, cauliflower, fruit, etc.), or that included essential nutrients, vitamins and minerals a body needs to function properly, or that were actually created by a natural process - (grape to raisen) - did not require RCT. The grape has x properties, and when it ripens into a raisen it has x properties plus or minus (or whatever). If research uncovers beneficial properties in a natural product that are known to be beneficial, and/or discoveries other beneficial properties after it has undergone a natural change is it not a given that they have x, y, or z properties which are known to function in a positive way and play a positive role in our health? Why would it need RCT? | |||
| 4. Were there RCTs that determined not all wild mushrooms are safe to eat, or that blueberries are good for you? :-) | |||
| Please don't mistake my curiosity and desire to learn new things as anything but what it is. When I do learn something it is learned well because I ask questions from different angles (the writer in me). When an editor I respect and admire responds to my questions, especially someone with authority, I trust that it's factual information until proven otherwise. Therefore when you responded to me at Proj Med, I felt confident in quoting your response. When you responded to my ping and started editing Kombucha, you turned the article in a slightly different direction by restoring some of the scientifically unsupported information I had removed. Removal of passages with inline quotes that were sourced to RS 2014 reviews, and replacing them with 15 year old reviews that do not include the most recent scientific research that discloses inherent properties of the product and/or process quite understandably confused me. What it appears you did was replace material that was supported scientifically per #3 above with older material that was unsupported and did not include recent research. How does that make sense? | |||
| One last thing I'd like to share. While it may not have been your intention, your actions appear to have emboldened certain editors who have repeatedly shown ill-will toward me. It felt like I had walked into the middle of a swarming beehive, and that isn't how it's supposed to feel when GF collaboration is involved. As an admin, shouldn't you have commented on the PAs and incivility? When left unchecked, it's the kind of behavior that elevates into hounding and harassment. Take a look at the discussion on my TP after I reverted the edits of one editor who reverted my edits, then he reverted me again. I also blanked two edit warring notices that were also unwarranted threats against me by another editor I politely reminded about edit warring first. While it appears as a simple notice, the truth of the matter is that they were unwarranted which makes them a threat, especially by an editor who simply showed up at the article, never joined in the TP discussions, and started reverting and hacking away at the article. I normally don't edit articles like Kombucha, but the behavior at such articles raises a lot of behavioral questions. | |||
| As a copy-editor/reviewer/rollbacker and most recently a volunteer at DRN, I may end up at an article about natural products or altmed, etc. I am quite capable of and prefer polite, intelligent discourse but when the discussion turns condescending toward me, or worse, uncivil as it did at Kombucha (by some of the same editors who were aggressive and/or uncivil toward me during the MfDs of my essay and also at Griffin) it requires intervention. Why are such behaviors allowed to elevate by offending editors, and the when the attacked editor puts up a defense, they are criticized and boomeranged? It's insanity. Doc, I'm weary of the unwarranted PAs and contentious labels - like being referred to as an anti-science advocate and other BS comments of ill-will designed to persuade public opinion against me. It is quite hurtful and certainly not helpful to the project. The PAs and beehive behavior are one of the reasons we are losing editors by the score. As I'm sure you are aware, we have several editors whose behavior is very disruptive and uncivil - baiters and hounders - they seem to forget there is a living breathing person on the other end of the discussion when they make hurtful comments. I hope you will be one of the administrators who can help eliminate those issues and make WP a happy place once again. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:28, 17 June 2015
| Translation Main page | Those Involved (sign up) | Newsletter |
ConcernHi James, I'm confused as to why you deleted the entire page for "Margaret Garrett" instead of just making edits to get rid of copyright infringement. That was a lot of work and the page met notability guidelines. Can you undo deletion so I can go in and paraphrase instead of starting from scratch again? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwiki2 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The sources in question were written by the artist--it seemed okay to have her Misplaced Pages page in her own words. I don't want to put my email address in a public forum, but if you could just put the article back up I can take it from there. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwiki2 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, thank you for email but that was only the first paragraph. I would really like the rest of the article, too--with the list of exhibitions, etc. Is there a way you can either restore that or send it to me? Preferably just restore it so I can edit from there. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwiki2 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I remain really confused as to why you *deleted* the entire page instead of editing it to fix your problems with it!!!! Is there a way to undo deletion and go from there? I feel like I've asked this like 5 times now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwiki2 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
update or omithttps://meta.wikimedia.org/WMMED/Reports I would either update these pages or omit them from the WPMF meta page. Lucas559 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Building capacityI'm quite serious here. I understand that you'd like a fast solution to what you perceive as a major problem. But we really are having a problem finding people who are willing to put themselves in the way of the abuse that comes with the CU and OS bits (it's not uncommon for us to be seriously harassed), and are qualified, and actually do the work; two out of three isn't good enough or they're not going to be effective in the job. And they have to be administrators; the checkuser tool is worse than useless without the ability to block. Given your previous history of getting the medical translation project off the ground, you may very well be one of the small group of people who could bring some change to the moribund RFA area. The more administrators there are, the more likely that there will be a sufficient pool of talent interested and willing to develop the skills to identify and act against conflict of interest editing. In a lot of cases it doesn't need checkuser, anyway, it just needs a block button. And keep in mind that there are a lot of people who are indeed editing in good faith but whose CU results could be misinterpreted to suggest that they're gaining some benefit. I seem to remember a bunch of medical students from New York City once who found themselves blocked for adding links to excellent patient-centered information about common diseases. Risker (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
MERS ArticleHi! Sorry to disturb. I'm not sure whether the current "listing format" of the diagnosis section on the MERS page is appropriate. Maybe, it'll be better in paragraph form? Moreover, I'm not quite sure about the function of the history section, which as I remember is (in fact the "epidemiology" section) for diseases that were eradicated (like smallpox). The one there on the MERS page looks like a news outline but is it really necessary? Thanks! Biomedicinal 15:32, 10 June 2015
Nuklearhi would you please block 80.42.22.237 as a sock of Nuklear. Edit warring at Loxtidine. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Vitamin D: society & culture?Doc -- your revert seems overly strict to what is only a MEDMOS suggestion; as the example shows, it's a tangent to the information under such a section title. The alternate title of "Recommended intake levels and health claims" is common parlance in regulatory guidelines and food labeling, and is likely more readily interpreted by common encyclopedia users.--Zefr (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
HeadingDear Doc James, Thank you for your advice. I'm am new to wiki and have concentrated primarily on publication of peer-reviewed journal articles during my career. I would take kind exception to your suggestion that historical and classic references lack merit. If we had to repeat studies, simply because they were older than five years, scientific advancements would grind to a rapid halt. Also accurate citations for the sake of historical primacy are important. I hope my latest additions to this section may meet with your approval. Kind regards, Dr. UVB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr UVB (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Excessive trim leaving potentially wrong statement or at least unsourced statement behindHello Doc, I'd wish to note that https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anxiety_disorder&diff=660555781&oldid=660555399 is such an excessive trim that it leaves the statement completely unsourced, and potentially also wanting. I'm not a specialist when it comes to healthcare (know a bit but I'm far from a specialist), but when someone referred me to the page I noted it has some flaws due to this. Can you please take a look again at it and where applicable restore the source-link as well other text if needed?
The Signpost: 10 June 2015
BiographiesHi Doc James, Are biographies relevant to Wikiproject Med? Here's a BLP of Alan Coates I have been working on with User: Wittylama. Just launched. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
RabiesThanks for catching that bit of vandalism and restoring the last good version. I hadn't noticed! -Pax85 (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Wiki Project Med Foundation"Wiki Project Med Foundation ... is an incorporated NGO in the state of NY" Why haven't I found any information regarding this?96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The IP should take their complaints to the article talk page. Making this fuss at an editor's talk and at BLPN is not warranted for something that is verifiable, uncontentious, and known to be correct. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC) page Osteoporosis, which have been revertedI've now had to correct the article TWICE :( Please leave it alone. Mike.
Your most recent response plus....Ok, thank you for responding to my questions at Kombucha and particularly for responding with the following diff:
2. How were you able to harvest my prior comments in that same diff? I never knew we had such a feature where we could harvest prior posts in a discussion and include them in a diff without inclusion in the reply itself. Is it an admin thing? 3. Re: RCT - I was under the impression that inherent beneficial properties and the mechanisms that cause a particular action in natural products (such as the inherent properites in a coffee bean, cauliflower, fruit, etc.), or that included essential nutrients, vitamins and minerals a body needs to function properly, or that were actually created by a natural process - (grape to raisen) - did not require RCT. The grape has x properties, and when it ripens into a raisen it has x properties plus or minus (or whatever). If research uncovers beneficial properties in a natural product that are known to be beneficial, and/or discoveries other beneficial properties after it has undergone a natural change is it not a given that they have x, y, or z properties which are known to function in a positive way and play a positive role in our health? Why would it need RCT? 4. Were there RCTs that determined not all wild mushrooms are safe to eat, or that blueberries are good for you? :-) Please don't mistake my curiosity and desire to learn new things as anything but what it is. When I do learn something it is learned well because I ask questions from different angles (the writer in me). When an editor I respect and admire responds to my questions, especially someone with authority, I trust that it's factual information until proven otherwise. Therefore when you responded to me at Proj Med, I felt confident in quoting your response. When you responded to my ping and started editing Kombucha, you turned the article in a slightly different direction by restoring some of the scientifically unsupported information I had removed. Removal of passages with inline quotes that were sourced to RS 2014 reviews, and replacing them with 15 year old reviews that do not include the most recent scientific research that discloses inherent properties of the product and/or process quite understandably confused me. What it appears you did was replace material that was supported scientifically per #3 above with older material that was unsupported and did not include recent research. How does that make sense? One last thing I'd like to share. While it may not have been your intention, your actions appear to have emboldened certain editors who have repeatedly shown ill-will toward me. It felt like I had walked into the middle of a swarming beehive, and that isn't how it's supposed to feel when GF collaboration is involved. As an admin, shouldn't you have commented on the PAs and incivility? When left unchecked, it's the kind of behavior that elevates into hounding and harassment. Take a look at the discussion on my TP after I reverted the edits of one editor who reverted my edits, then he reverted me again. I also blanked two edit warring notices that were also unwarranted threats against me by another editor I politely reminded about edit warring first. While it appears as a simple notice, the truth of the matter is that they were unwarranted which makes them a threat, especially by an editor who simply showed up at the article, never joined in the TP discussions, and started reverting and hacking away at the article. I normally don't edit articles like Kombucha, but the behavior at such articles raises a lot of behavioral questions. As a copy-editor/reviewer/rollbacker and most recently a volunteer at DRN, I may end up at an article about natural products or altmed, etc. I am quite capable of and prefer polite, intelligent discourse but when the discussion turns condescending toward me, or worse, uncivil as it did at Kombucha (by some of the same editors who were aggressive and/or uncivil toward me during the MfDs of my essay and also at Griffin) it requires intervention. Why are such behaviors allowed to elevate by offending editors, and the when the attacked editor puts up a defense, they are criticized and boomeranged? It's insanity. Doc, I'm weary of the unwarranted PAs and contentious labels - like being referred to as an anti-science advocate and other BS comments of ill-will designed to persuade public opinion against me. It is quite hurtful and certainly not helpful to the project. The PAs and beehive behavior are one of the reasons we are losing editors by the score. As I'm sure you are aware, we have several editors whose behavior is very disruptive and uncivil - baiters and hounders - they seem to forget there is a living breathing person on the other end of the discussion when they make hurtful comments. I hope you will be one of the administrators who can help eliminate those issues and make WP a happy place once again. Atsme 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
