User talk:Wolololol

October 2013

Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Tianeptine because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Thanks for pointing out that "section error" in Endocrine system! 'Twas vandalism from about 20 January, many edits ago. Fixed now. --Hordaland (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to actually look at the references before judging their quality. Wolololol (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)wolololol[reply]

I did. You are adding two case reports. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

This [1] is not a case report. Wolololol (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Wolololol[reply]

It is not a review article / secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a case report. It begins with the words "Five cases involving the treatment of longstanding, severe, and previously unmanageable self-injurious behavior are presented." On Wikipedia we don't make claims about the medical effectiveness of a device based on a single report based on five people. Please read the guidance that editors have spent time creating to help you understand the conventions we abide by here. In this case it's at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and in a nutshell states "Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." That primary source you are edit-warring to place in the article is a very long way from the quality of sourcing we need for biomedical claims. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what single-subject research is. It is not scientifically feasible to run a RCT of SIBIS by finding a randomized sample of 400 individuals with developmental disabilities with longstanding resistance to other evidence-based practices for reducing head-directed self-injury. The authors demonstrated a function relation between SIBIS and levels of self-injury 25 times in that article. If the actual study demonstrating the effectiveness of SIBIS 25 times keeps being removed, I'll cite from a textbook written by experts in the field that summarizes the study instead of citing the actual study. I have no idea why that is preferred, it seems really counterproductive, but if you want that instead, you've got it. There's no reason to bury evidence for a medical device that can be used to reduce head-directed self-injury when all other treatments have failed. Wolololol (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Wolololol[reply]

I've read the text book and it makes no analysis of the single five-person case report that you seem so keen on. The single paragraph in the textbook gives no support to your claim of effectiveness and isn't going to help you in your quest to tell the world about how wonderful the SIBIS device is in curing head-directed self-injury. There's nowhere else in this encyclopedia that gives any credence to medical claims supported only by a single 25-year-old case report on five subjects. We're not about to start now. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please get consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste

In this edit [2] you added

"All participants had a long-standing history of SIB that had proven unmanageable and was severe in nature (i.e., caused significant tissue damage or put the individual at risk of tissue damage or death). Treatment included the contingent application of electric shock following occurrences of severe SIB using the SIBIS device."

Ref says

"each of the five individuals had a long-standing history of SIB that had proven unmanageable and was severe in nature (i.e., caused significant tissue damage or put the individual at risk of tissue damage or death). .. Treatment included the contingent application of electric shock following occurrences of severe SIB

We must be careful not to copy and paste. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is getting ridiculous. First we must not reference actual articles and can't interpret anything the authors don't state directly; instead, we have to use some other peoples' interpretations of a study (aka a secondary source); then we must not copy and paste from that source, even though the source of the text is directly cited; yet we can make an interpretation, as long as its from a secondary source? what conventions are being used here? just whatever will mask as much information as possible? seeing as you requested deletion of this page, i do think you have a personal bias against the intervention and are not being objective. we have articles about the Berlin patient that was cured of HIV, but that was one person. why shouldn't you delete the evidence from that article too? Wolololol (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)wolololol[reply]

This is an issue of copyright infringement which is separate from the issue of using low quality sources. Yes their is poor evidence available regarding this device. Not many conclusions can be made because of that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]