User talk:DemonTigerMom


 * }

Elastic therapeutic tape
Also, please review Wikipedia's page discussing when you should not revert to reinstate edits previously removed; the limitations on reverting apply to an editor, regardless of editor name or IP (see ). If you want to reinstate text that has already been removed once, please discuss it at Talk:Elastic therapeutic tape.

Also, please have a look at WP:MEDRS for infomation about what kinds of sources Wikipedia requires for medical topics and statements. There are recent, high quality secondary reviews available; we shouldn't be using primary sources (original studies) in this article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been reading through the policies and I cannot find what your process is for dealing with a person or group of people who repeatedly post the same inaccurate information. Are you saying that after three tries, the made up facts are considered true? I don't get this. Some articles that were cited by me and by previous readers have been marked "unreliable medical citation." These are articles from peer reviewed journals. What makes them unreliable? Also I don't really understand where I need to go to find out whether you replied to me. It seems like your whole process is set up for people who have the time to figure out how to game the system and is unfriendly to factual corrections.DemonTigerMom (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * On finding out whether I've replied to you, I started the conversation at your page, I prefer to keep conversations together, and I have your page on my watchlist (meaning I will see when you respond). User talk pages are for discussions involving editors, behavioral issues, banter, while article talk pages are for discussing improvments to the article (in this case, Talk:Elastic therapeutic tape is where you would post questions about the article). WP:3RR is not about "dealing with a person or group ... who repeatedly post the same inaccurate information"; it tells you not to re-add something once it has been removed without developing consensus on article talk.  That applies per editor, regardless if they are editing from several usernames or IPs.  And you shouldn't think you can "use up" your three tries; if you're reverted once, discussing the edit on talk is the recommended route. If there is still disagreement after discussion, the disputed statements can be tagged in the article until the discussion is settled. Please have a look at WP:MEDRS; peer-reviewed medical journal publication is not the only standard used for citing medical articles.  You can find a study in even peer-reviewed journals to support just about anything; the standard is whether the study (primary source) has been vetted by secondary sources in a review article.  Original studies are primary sources; they are only used sparingly (see also WP:PSTS).  In this case, we have multiple secondary reviews available; we shouldn't be citing medical information to lesser quality sources or non-review articles. This page may help you distinguish between peer-reviewed primary studies and the kinds of secondary reviews Wikipedia medical articles use: Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches.  As to "gaming the system", we have something here called WP:AGF-- we assume that most folks are trying to do their best, sometimes still learning, often confused, but not usually intentionally disrupting.  When someone really is "trying to game the system" or editing disruptively, they will end up in dispute resolution.   Reading through all of the information in the welcome template above may help as well.  Regards,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)