User talk:BrianRothbart

Welcome!

 * }

August 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity has been reverted. Your edit here to PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://rothbartsite.com/uploads/Medial_Column_Foot_System.pdf, http://rothbartsite.com/uploads/Nov-Dec09_Podiatry_Review.pdf) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello there
Just to let you know I saw mention of your article at WT:MED. Wikipedia is to have a balance of citations (called "due weight") and you can read more here. It appears the article lacks that sort of balance. You can check out the WP:Teahouse to ask for advice, by the way, if you'd like to learn how to edit "correctly". Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * I just revised my citations. Please take a look.  Any suggestions?


 * Professor Rothbart


 * Greetings again. Did you see my last comments at User talk:Biosthmors? The concerns I express there (esp. the links to 42, GNG, and MEDRS) still apply. Biosthmors (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you would like to see the sources I've used to write the DVT article, see that list of references. We tend to have strict sourcing guidelines for medical information here, as mentioned at WT:MED. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

This might be of help. A research grant at the Georgia University (1997), independently conducted by Cummings et al proved the existence of the inherited abnormal foot structure that I first wrote about. In essence, a measuring protocol was developed to measure the supinatus (structural elevation) of the 1st metatarsal and then ran. A team of researchers then measured the degree of supinatus in the feet diagnosed as having this foot structure. There was a high inter and intra reliability in the measurements. That is, in the blinded study, they all came up with the same measurements and conclusions (the abnormal foot structure can be reliably measured).

Does this meet the standing for secondary citations?

Professor Rothbart


 * It depends. Do they cite your work and say it repeats it? If not, then it's your original research that is making the conclusion. That's fine for a research publication, but not for Wikipedia. We don't publish novel thoughts. We only publish what can already be verified. Biosthmors (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Their study was to determine if the foot supinatus exists (hallmark of the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity). At that time, the assumption was, if the foot supinatus exists than it should be measureable.  Based on that assumption, they devised a way to measure if it existed or not.


 * Their results were that the foot supinatus does indeed exist. They were able to measure it with great accuracy.


 * It was an independent study (I was not involved). Their study validated my research.


 * I did not put this in the article thinking it was not necessary. Was I wrong?


 * Professor Rothbart


 * I don't really know. I don't think we're speaking the same language yet. I hope you don't mind, but let me be a bit more blunt. Essentially what the article should demonstrate is this: that there is scientific consensus that what it says is accurate. Given that all the citations go to you, how can Wikipedia volunteers know that this is an accepted concept in mainstream medicine, and not just your opinion? Wikipedia isn't the place to "prove" one's view is right. That's left to the scientific literature. Please please please publish any novel ideas there, and not here, as it is disallowed. I currently think the article should be deleted. Maybe it would help you if you read about What Wikipedia is not so that you know more about what Wikipedia is. Well, I feel like I've done my best to communicate what we're trying to do here. Is it a mission you could support? Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you for your bluntness. The PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity is not a concept widespread in mainstream medicine. Among researchers (and especially embryologists) this foot structure is recognized. But among family practitioners, I would suspect not. So with that in mind, I fully understood your position that this article may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.

with regards,

Professor Rothbart
 * The article has now been moved to preclinical clubfoot deformity, but I have proposed that it be deleted, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And if it does get deleted, I have copied and pasted your work to User:BrianRothbart/Preclinical clubfoot deformity. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:BrianRothbart


A tag has been placed on User:BrianRothbart, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. SmartSE (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity


Hello BrianRothbart. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)