User talk:Contentmaven

JFW | T@lk  06:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology
Do you have a specific interest in dermatology? kilbad (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, and I appreciate your work on wikipedia. If you are every looking for more information concerning dermatology content on wikipedia, please see WP:DERM. kilbad (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dementia
If you could be so kind, would you please tag Dementia of Alzheimer disease with an author request for speedy deletion, aka the tag? Thanks. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to do this in that when I type <> in the search box, I'm told no such article exists. If you'll help me to find it I will be happy to add the tag.


 * As you can see from the red link there, it has apparently already been taken care of. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Trochanteric bursitis
Hi there; I have obviously not undone your recently created redirect, and I am sure that your comment on renaming of this condition is correct. Back here in the UK the name is unchanged. Just for your information - users here will still find the article via the redirect. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's great, Anthony. Thanks for the information, and the redirect.

Please look at my additions to the article, which I'm about to submit.

Knee disorders
Hello. A few months ago you removed a sentence from the article Knee mentioning patellofemoral syndrome and put in a paragraph on non-traumatic injuries. There you mention patellar compression syndrome and patellofemoral instability syndrome. How does patellofemoral syndrome fit in? Is it the same as one of these? From the article on it, it doesn't sound like your description of patellofemoral instability syndrome. Can you clarify this in the Knee article?

By the way, when I clicked on your user name, it redirected to an article called Agitation. Maybe you could replace the redirect with a couple sentences about yourself!

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric. I'll look into it.

I didn't mean to remove anything, but I did a little reorganization. It is my intention never to delete anything from Wikipedia, merely to add. This must have been an inadvertent deletion.

I'll clarify the question about patellofemoral syndrome.

Also thanks for pointing out the redirect on my user name. Don't know how that happened (and I wonder if the Agitation section ever got posted). I will definitely put profile information in there.

August 2009
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. ''You seem to be a single-purpose account adding information and links to United Business Media's www.consultantlive.com. Please review conflict of interest and spam guidelines before you make any more edits related to your company.

Instead, please discuss the addition of any edits and links on the article's talk page and let uninvolved editors add the edits to the main article to avoid any perceptions of inappropriate or promotional edits related to CMPMedica.

Thank you.

'' Flowanda | Talk 06:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As you know, CMPMedica has been investing much time and effort enhancing Wikipedia's medical content. CMPMedica is one of the leading publishers in medicine, and produces a balanced portfolio of print and Web journals that educate a wide range of healthcare professionals. As requested in your letter, we have completed a thorough review of the policies you mention, and our response appears below.

First, I'm happy to tell you more about myself. I am a medical editor with over 30 years in professional medical communications. My agenda is the dissemination of accurate medical information. My citations are non-promotional, and they reference materials whose quality standards are amongst the highest in the industry.

As to the guidance on Reliable Resources, all of the citations from CMP Medica are to peer-reviewed (and highly regarded) secondary medical sources. Besides Consultant, you'll see that I have also added citations to the Journal of Musculoskeletal Medicine, The AIDS Reader, Psychiatric Times, and Oncology—-all of which adhere to the highest standards of neutrality and authority, relying on close contacts with expert boards of medical advisers to guide the direction of content and the choice of authors.

None of the information I have added relates in any way to the corporate business of United Business Media. My text and citations cover a wide variety of medical topics, without regard to point of view. If you read some of my text additions you will see that they are all purely, as your guidelines say, "encyclopedic" in nature.

It is my policy to look for gaps in Wikipedia's information and add citations where these exist, particularly in cases where citations on a topic are more than 5 years old (as specified in Wikipedia guidelines). I explicitly avoid adding citations where the existing references are adequate. Furthermore, it is my intention never to delete content. (It appears that I did delete one sentence from the Knee article, but that was inadvertent and I am about to correct it.) I intend only to add value and enhance information.

For instance, in the case of the asthma articles you cite, my additions (1) clarified the physiology of the hygiene hypothesis, (2) pointed out from secondary sources that doctors can rely on a child's self-report of symptoms beyond the age of 7, and (3) added the crucial main point of the latest US government guidelines, that doctors and their patients need to collaborate to work out an asthma action plan (filling a considerable gap in Wikipedia information). To an article about cardiovascular disease, which had previously focused only on the use of medications, I added the essential information that diet, exercise, and other lifestyle interventions should also be part of the picture, including a citation from a review (which helped to add balance and neutrality to an article that had been largely promoting drugs).

I am willing to submit my edits for discussion, but as many of them are quite small and none are controversial, I question whether this would be a good use of everyone's time.

I'm indebted to someone else for pointing out that the link to my Contentmaven name had been replaced by a redirect to a small article I wrote about agitation in dementia (a topic that was absent on Wikipedia until I added it). I have replaced this erroneous redirect with identifying information.

Contentmaven (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2009

Feedback reply
Posted here: Requests_for_feedback/2011_April_24. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * . MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hey, Contentmaven! You post on your userpage that you welcome suggestions. I just have a small one. Back in 2011, you edited the article Schizophrenia, and you mention that schizophrenia is complicated with OCD considerably more often than could be explained by pure chance... I saw that edit about a year ago and I was thinking to myself, 'What is that person talking about!' It didn't make sense then, but revisiting that edit I realize that you used a more obscure, somewhat purely medical, but definitely correct term. But I, and I think a lot of other people familiar with psychological etiology, are more used to the term co-morbid. I actually changed it to that, because I was somewhat confused at the time. My suggestion is perhaps to just use terms that are more purely psychological terms at those types of articles to make it easier to read for laypeople, or at least to people familiar with terms used with diseases such as this one. Here's a link to the edit since, as I said previously, I changed it back then. Like I said, just a suggestion. And for your own personal information, I by no means am a regular editor of the schizophrenia article as you may see by visiting the history of that page. Thanks! I welcome any comments about this post. Thanks, again. Lighthead...KILLS!! 04:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)