User talk:Bapb

First, welcome to Wikipedia! You're doing great work on the article,it's especially important to provide references as you do. Keep it up! --Conti|✉ 19:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme disease

Great! Let's work together. External links inside the article aren't the best ways of references. That's why I've converted them. Thanks for fixing the same references. Me too, I'll concentrate now on peer review. Welcome here, and drop me a message if you need any kind of help. :) NCurse _work 05:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bapb, I'm fighting an insurance company to cover long term treatment for Lyme for my wife. Based on your entries on the Lyme page, I'm hoping that you can help me. I need to find some medical journal article that supports the use of testing CD-57 to track the infection. I would appreciate any help you could provide. dlacykusters@fenwick.com Thanks in advance! Dlacykusters-fenwick 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talk page. Bapb 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improving CFS/ME Article

Hi, I've noticed you used to contribute to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I recently nominated it as the Wikipedia:Improvement Drive. I feel that it needs urgent improvement, and if you agree please vote at the Improvement Drive project page. Thanks! Thedreamdied 02:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Study

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. 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, Sam4bc (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring and WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lyme disease. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My detailed explanation of the repeated reversion on Talk:Lyme_disease is grounded in published research, including the most recent comments which are a direct response to your post. I think it's awfully clear that I am trying to have a civil conversation without violating any of wikipedia's policies, and warnings are not necessary. There are situations in which the 3RR may not apply, according to WP:3RR. Let's stick to WP:CIV please. -Bapb (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bapb please see WP:POINT. Please don't use an article to make a point with very minute debatabel points of statistical analysis from the primary literature. Take twenty drug patients and twelve placebo patients and you don't find significant differences for your primary outcome then you can look at secondary outcomes. When you don't find significance there you can use McGill not total pain, like in the supplement table. No significance still? Now divide your patients into baseline groups. Yeah this is how research is done some times you massage data until you have something to report and it is good to do that bc you might overlook something other wise. Dosen't change the main conclusion there is no consitent positive benefit of the therapies the chronic Lyme group asks for. Thank you. RetroS1mone talk 04:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's editorializing? This is bizarre, I never claimed that the interpretation of Fallon et al.'s data is beyond debate. Clearly you disagree with Fallon et al. who state that "sustained improvement, however, was noted in physical functioning and current pain among patients with greater baseline impairment, suggesting that ceftriaxone may have both short- and long- term benefits for these symptoms. A post hoc analysis suggested that the ceftriaxone group's sustained improvement in physical functioning to week 24 could also be seen when baseline severity of impairment was not included as a covariate."

So you agree with critics of Fallon's study, which is fine. I am not interested in debating the merits of the studies. That's not the point of wikipedia. Certainly there are many criticisms of the Klempner et al. study which found no benefit, such as the fact that the dose of doxycycline is too low to penetrate the central nervous system. We can debate these studies all day which I have no interest in doing, I am merely reporting the results. -Bapb (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite certain that none of your edit-warring falls under the recognized exceptions to 3RR, despite your suggestion above. Use the talk page and try to convince people not that you're "right" about Lyme disease, but that your edits make the encyclopedia better. If your arguments make sense on that level, people will listen. If that fails, then you can take a look at the dispute resolution pathway. MastCell ^Talk 06:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same talk page? I am hardly trying to convince anyone that I'm "right" about Lyme disease. I haven't made a single argument about Lyme disease per se. My edits were made strictly in the hope of making the encyclopedia more accurate. -Bapb (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a long sequence of editors just like you who are coming here advocating for a certain point of view (POV). We're not utterly stupid. We have seen the notices on an external site for people to come here and change this article. The problems are: 1/ Wikipedia is not for advocacy. 2/ These newcomers do not understand how Wikipedia works, and seem unwilling to listen. As the POV pushing continues here, the Wikipedia community will lose patience and this whole pattern of accounts will be restricted from editing. Jehochman ^Talk 11:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]