User talk:Mcibulka

Welcome!

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

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

08:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)08:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)~~==Sacroiliac joint dysfunction== I reverted your edit at Sacroiliac joint dysfunction because you did not explain why the edit was made in the edit summary, and the edit removed a sourced statement. I do not know whether the statement is correct, or the source reliable, and your edit may have been desirable. However articles are developed following certain procedures whereby disagreements need to be explored in discussion, and not via conflicting edits. Please add any comments at the talk (discussion) page of the article, namely Talk:Sacroiliac joint dysfunction. If you have any general questions about Wikipedia, reply here (I will probably notice and may be able to reply). Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind reply, although I have written quite a fair number of sections I have never written from start to finish a complete (not sure what the name is called).

Yes I do have MAJOR problems with the SIJ dysfunction section, I have published quite a few articles on the SIJ (check me out on PUBMED=Cibulka MT), and although I know quite a bit I of course don't want to come off pedantic. Learning the "truth" is my goal.

With that said many of the references that I deleted are secondary not primary references that cannot back up what is said. Also much of the SIJ dysfunction is misunderstood plagiarism from the first reference, many sentences are verbatim/identical, a major no-no in citation for those who know better. What is even more disturbing is that many of the references cannot back what is said in the SIJ dysfunction paper, they appear without any backing.

Reference 1, 2, 6 have no place as a reference to back up scientific facts, not saying they cannot be used in other ways, as places to see and get other opinions but that is the extent of their worth.

Some of the references are not even properly referenced, like number 11, this is totally inappropriate which consists of a video and self promoting website of a physical therapist trying to push business (embarrassing to me as a PT). I always thought that this is what Wikipedia would like to avoid??

Other references like 14 from Dynamic Chiropractic are also very poor quality and not peer reviewed. At least towards the bottom some peer reviewed references do finally show up. I have written quite a number of SIJ papers, you can retrieve many free through PUBMED if you are interested or I can send you the pdf's (I realize this is probably not your area of interest).

I am not really sure where to start with this, your guidance would be helpful, and yes even though I have written a lot on the SIJ I know I still realize I have much to learn and don't mind sharing other viewpoints. Just want to see the quality to improve. Michael T. CIbulka, PT, DPT, MHS, OCS, FAPTA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcibulka (talk • contribs) 03:58, 12 July 2011

Thanks for your efforts to fix articles at Wikipedia—we really need people like you who can bring a scientific and professional approach. Unfortunately this area is way outside my knowledge and I think some help from editors with experience in this topic is going to be needed. To start that, I have inserted two "WikiProject" boxes at the top of Talk:Sacroiliac joint dysfunction, and have posted a request at WT:WikiProject Medicine#Sacroiliac joint dysfunction, and another comment at the article talk page. Please be patient while we wait to see if anyone joins in (further responses should be at the article talk page, aka "discussion" page).

Of course you are correct that plagiarism is prohibited—I hope that a WikiProject Medicine editor will check that out and take appropriate action depending on how severe it is. I can't take any more time (and don't have the necessary background) to try to understand your point about "secondary not primary references". See WP:SECONDARY for the meaning of "secondary source" here: we prefer secondary sources which can be assumed to represent someone's analysis of suitable primary sources—while primary sources are helpful for direct information, it is considered synthesis (a bad sin) for an editor to choose which primary sources to use to support text (because the editor might be cherry picking those sources which present a view that the editor favors).

It would be helpful if you would pick a small number of issues (say just two to start), and spell out what source you mean, and what the problem with it is. That should be done on the article talk page.

I refactored (changed) your comment to indent it. There is no problem with what you did, and please do not be concerned with the trivia of formatting text—there are plenty of people who will fix any issues. However, I thought you might like to see how talk page comments are supposed to operate (edit this section to see). There is some more info at WP:TP which also mentions that you should add four tildes (~~~~) after a space at the end of the last line of your message. When you click "Show preview" you will see that the four tildes are replaced by a signature: your user name and the date/time. Again, don't worry about that, but it's simple to do and worth getting used to. If nothing happens, you might remind me by adding a new section at my talk page (see my signature). Johnuniq (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woa, been busy teaching and have not checked things out. First, being new I did not know my last communication was going to be "aired". Regardless if Wiki is ever going to become a trusted source then perhaps articles should be written or at least edited by experts in the field. Sadly this person who is attacking me has no clue to what he or she is talking about, they have never evaluated a patient with SIJD, performed SIJ research, or taught in this area. Yet whomever this is appears to be a very unhappy person with a vindictive tone with very disparaging remarks (for example: juvenile approach, plugging myself-if she only knew me this is so far from the truth, suggesting I wrote the SIJ article- which I did not- I just started to reference it- and its not near complete- just happens that I have researched and published quite a bit in this area) Perhaps this is the biggest problem of Wikipedia, it allows people with no known knowledge, background, a scientific understanding of the research, or any clinical experience to publish in a realm that is clearly not their own. I have had SIJ problems for years but I would never write something if I was not an expert in this area. Thirty four years of work, 30 with patients with LBP, hip pain, and SIJ pain, I have learned a lot, do I know it all, of course not. Did I write over some of this persons work inadvertently, yes I did not know the rules of editing that is my fault, was I vindictive to anyone personally like this person has been, no I have not. I, hopefully, like anyone else out there is just trying to get the proper information to patient's so they can get the care they need, no more, no less. Time will tell whether my work has credibility, or for that matter anyone else's research work. I did not attack Richard Don Tigney, I have known Richard for years, and although I agree with Richard in many areas of the SIJ I don't agree on others, that is the way things work in the scientific world. Vicky Simms I have never heard of her, I have never seen a refereed publication by her, nor does Ms. Sims present at any conference that I am aware of, she may be a wonderful clinician I won't support or deny that, but putting her website on as a reference makes no sense to me, just looks to me like someone is supporting her for whatever reason (but I know it is surely not scientific)!Mcibulka (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]