User talk:Digeridoodle

January 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Withania somnifera, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please read WP:MEDRS for the quality of sources needed on medical topics. Ayurveda journals are quackery, and not used on Wikipedia. Zefr (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2019 (U

Zefr I cited Memorial Sloan Kettering's meta-analysis , which you have quickly rolled back. Hardly quackery. I fully intend to reinstate my edits careful to avoid any "Ayurvedic journals" you may take issue with. If you could please be more specific which sources you take issue with then perhaps we could have an evidence-based dialogue rather than allow for editorializing. This Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine is a peer-reviewed publication that meets the standards you have cited.Digeridoodle (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

References

After you read MEDRS, you'll see that the two sources you cite above do not meet the quality the encyclopedia expects. A systematic review of completed, high-quality clinical trials is needed, but does not exist, to my knowledge. Best also to take up any discussion of source quality on the article talk page to allow the input of other MEDRS-informed editors. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Zefr I also took this conversation to the talk page. The article you seem to have issue with is a double-blind placebo controlled study reviewed in the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, which according to Wikipedia is a peer-reviewed journal that meets the MEDRS standards. Similarly, you acknowledged yourself on that talk page that the meta-analysis published by MSK was a valid source, and yet you have repeatedly rolled back attempts to cite it. Thanks for the reply and I look forward to a civil dialogue. Digeridoodle (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Withania somnifera. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Work through the talk page for WP:CON and be careful about WP:3RR or you will be blocked. Zefr (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Zefr I would also ask you to engage on the Talk page in question rather than rolling back all edits without substantive arguments for why they are invalid. I started a thread on the talk page, although since you have elected to disallow any of my content there will not be much context for the discussion. Digeridoodle (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Answered also at Teahouse. MSKCC is not a meta-analysis. Individual clinical trials are not considered reliable sources. For extravagent claims (WS and cancer) new extravagent evidence, not a speculative review. David notMD (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Digeridoodle, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Digeridoodle! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Teahouse hosts! Look forward to the discussion! Digeridoodle (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Jessica Gordon Nembhard has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jessica Gordon Nembhard. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Robert McClenon! Digeridoodle (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Jessica Gordon Nembhard has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jessica Gordon Nembhard. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Digeridoodle! You created a thread called Parsing Meta-analyses with Medical Content at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jessica Gordon Nembhard (February 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Jessica Gordon Nembhard may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jessica Gordon Nembhard has been accepted

Jessica Gordon Nembhard, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)