Misplaced Pages

User talk:Kosherfrog

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gwynand (talk | contribs) at 12:12, 16 April 2008 (Suggestion: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:12, 16 April 2008 by Gwynand (talk | contribs) (Suggestion: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Kosherfrog, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Rklawton 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Helpme request

What do you need help with? Pleace replace the {{helpme}} and a few sentences describing your problem and question on this page. --ais523 15:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Pseudocyst
Medical history
Pharmacy practice
Crush syndrome
Pain disorder
Excretory system
Myeloproliferative disease
Patella
Asymptomatic
Liposarcoma
Patient Self-Determination Act
Wit (play)
Busulfan
Triceps brachii muscle
Hemiballismus
Chondroma
Premalignant condition
Rhabdomyoma
Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
Cleanup
Germ cell ovarian cancer
Janus kinase
Artificial respiration
Merge
Uremia
Malpractice
Computed tomography
Add Sources
Lymphoma
Glioma
Designated patient
Wikify
Fanconi anemia
Periosteal reaction
Synovial sarcoma
Expand
Erythropoiesis
Terminal illness
Pulmonary artery catheter

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. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Participatory Medicine has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

On WT:MEDMOS you effectively threatened to "write some really interesting articles in other venues the mentality of the medical editors of Misplaced Pages". I think most comments that were made were ultimately constructive, and I therefore hope you'll have the decency to retract that threat as soon as possible. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not threaten. I tell what I am doing. After the exchanges that have taken place on WT:MEDMOS I am convinced that unfortunately wikipedia, when it comes to medical information is DEFINITELY not the place where people in need for instant information regarding a rare condition should go to, as a reference point. Your personal comments are public and will be given the publicity they deserve, because in your role as the 123rd most active editor you have a special responsibility and ability to model what the medical content in wikipedia is. You absolutely have the right to think that online medical communities are not to your liking and are not providing valuable services but I have equal rights to defend, on the internet, a new medical model where educated patients, in part through high quality exchanges via pee-to-peer patient online communities are improving the quality of care they receive and eventually improving the scientific knowledge of their disease. By blocking any mention of this very important use of the internet you are doing, IMO, a great disservice. I know you think the comments made were constructive, but in my experience, as a group, the editors on WT:MEDMOS have demonstrated a close-mindedness about patient-run medical online communities of a kind I haven't witnessed in the medical world for a few years. And I intend to make sure that people know about it. Kosherfrog (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You did indeed threaten to draw attention to our discussions. Despite our disagreement, I find that very poor form. I do, like all other contributors, have a special responsibility to model the medical content on Misplaced Pages. I have had numerous difficult conversations about the same subject with many contributors over the years. Usually, they were not interested in improving the content of Misplaced Pages; rather, they wanted to maximise exposure of their website. I'm not greatly surprised at this, given Misplaced Pages's phenomenal popularity.
What other contributors have shown is that the links you were suggesting are not going to be accessible to the general readership who are not patients. I think that is a very legitimate point, and I wish you'd address that rather than start with ad hominems. JFW | T@lk 08:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thought I should let you know that I asked for the opinion of other administrators at the administrators' noticeboard, because I have the feeling we will not come to agreement here. JFW | T@lk 10:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosher, I am not requesting a retraction, nor am I sure of how much your statement was a threat. That being said, I am asking you to please remain civil. You have every right to argue your points on WP:MEDMOS, even in the face of a possible consensus of wikipedia editors. I also believe it is fine to characterize wikipedia editors as handling something different than how most do, however any of these characterizations must be civil and not inflammatory. Telling the community you can write about their peculiararities isn't really constructive. If you are going to write something, go ahead, but if you believe this particular wikipedia community is wrong in their handling of something, make that argument on said talk pages. Mentions of off wikipedia essays on how wrong everyone is (whether they are wrong or right) will surely only serve to inflame and won't help your case. Gwynand | TalkContribs 12:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)