User talk:Mihai cartoaje
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi y-all!
Leave me a message.
Contents |
[edit] Epilepsy
I have removed some of your edits to Epilepsy and discussed the changes on the Talk page. If you wish to discuss this, please use my talk page or the epilepsy one. I hope this doesn't discourage you from making future contributions. BTW: when including references, please use the new ref tags in keeping with the other references. That ensures the reference-numbering works and keeps the article consistent. Thanks. Colin°Talk 08:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you have restored the text. I have requested third-party opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. Colin°Talk 10:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Mihai cartoaje,
- I find that it's great that you're looking at the primary literature and making an effort to understand it. Also, I think it's great that you're referencing the statements you add to Wikipedia.
- Those things said, I think you've been distracted, at times, by a few smaller studies and studies done on animals. Proving, in medicine, that some thing works is, typically, a long an arduous process. One or two small studies in the grand scheme of things don't have a lot of weight as sometimes the results were by chance -- Type I error, or there were methodological problems. Animal studies sometimes are misleading.[1] Even with a lot of testing things go wrong -- thalidomide is an example of that.
- I think you need to change your approach a little bit. Consider collections such as Bandolier and the Cochrane Collaboration. Also, I suggest you read a bit about epidemiology-- Bradford Hill's paper The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? I think is classic-- and I think it explains how a lot of the thinking is done in medicine. If you're new to an area I think a textbook or review article is the place to start. If you cite the primary literature--evaluate whether it is good (e.g. Is it is a randomized controlled trial? If it isn't randomized is there a control? Was the analysis done on an intention to treat basis?)
- I hope that you receive my comments as being constructive and look forward to your future contributions. Nephron T|C 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Schizophrenia
I agree with you on the removal of the violence section of schizophrenia, as it doesn't seem very nessicary. But I do think it's rather accurate... since I'm diagnosed with schizophrenia and can personally say that I'm almost never violent.
I see that a mediation has been filed on the dispute, anything I can help with to achieve compromise with both parties? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding reversions[2] to Schizophrenia
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Glen 11:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have tried discussing at first, but some of the accounts that want violence statistics in the article keep making personal attacks.
- Independent editors have written that there is a neutrality disagreement: [3] [4]. I don't see what the purpose of having a pov template on wikipedia would be if it can be removed by special purpose accounts.
- And I have discussed the disputed change on the talk page: [5].
-
- Please stop being silly adding a clearly unwelcome POV tag. This is nothing but edit warring, for which I've blocked you for 8h William M. Connolley 19:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Schizophrenia
I have left a positive comment as an outside view on the RfC. To deal with the sockpuppet-situation, maybe a request for user conduct (or should I say users conduct) on DPeterson will work to eliminate the sock-puppets?
It might be a good idea if you respond to the current RfC — just give a totally honest account on how you view the situation. --Grace E. Dougle 11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am presently taking a break from editing Wikipedia in order to motivate myself to catch up with other things I have to do.
- I have not been blocked; it was only a prank.
