User talk:Desoto10

Welcome to Wikipedia
-- Craigtalbert (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous
Thanks for your contributions to the AA talk page so far, all very good. You have asked some valid questions and should not be put off by anything disparaging that is put in response. If you need any help or "back-up" in relation to all things AA, then give me a shout. Within my own understanding of wiki policies, I will do my best to help. Step13thirteen (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Sinclair Method has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Sinclair Method constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC))
 * Sorry, my mistake. But next time, please make use of the edit summary, it is there for a reason, so your edit won't get mistaken as vandalism since vandals really like to remove content for no reason whatsoever. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

could you please help out?
I am currently a graduate student, working on a semester project regarding Wikipedia. I was hoping you would be able to privately answer a few questions in reference to your personal experience with Wikipedia in order for me to get your view on the website. The questions are on my user page, and if you could answer in them in word and e-mail them to the address shown that would be really helpful. Your anonymity is assured, and any personal information you give will never be used outside of this questionnaire. Thank you for your time.Curesearcher (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bone fracture
Your edit for bone fracture makes me wonder: what is the correct first aid response to a broken bone? You offered no alternative advice to the first responder in the field (or in the woods, or on the mountain, etc.). 71.234.215.133 (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In most cases, the appropriate emergency response for a broken bone is to call 911 and let the EMS folks take care of imobilization and transport. Splinting, especially when performed by normal people can cause more problems than it solves. This is sort of like first aid for snake bite where most people still think that they should get out the razor blades and hack up the bite so that they can then suck out the poison. My overall feeling is that, unless we are going to offer complete advice, including different trauma scenarios, we should offer very little advice.

If you are out in the boonies with no chance of help arriving soon, or in a fire or otherwise in a hazardous area and you absolutely have no choice but to move the patient, then the goal is to immobilize the break without moving the affected bones. Desoto10 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - Mr Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.150.205 (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with Anthroposophic medicine
I think I'm done with Anthroposophic medicine. Can you take a look and see if there is more to do? PPdd (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. I think that a little work needs to be done on the mistletoe section, but that is not critical at this time. I think that section could be shortened to something such as "In Vitro and animal tests demonstrate potential use of mistletoe in cancer treatment, and some clinical studies have demonstrated increased survival, but, in general, the studies are poor and the use of mistletoe is not recommended by any major US cancer groups, nor is its use permitted in the US by the FDA." or something similar. I don't think anyone gains any knowledge with what is there now. Other than that, the article reads well and presents AM in a balanced manner.Desoto10 (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Curious
Are you Mary Catherine DeSoto? II | (t - c) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC) No.Desoto10 (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Ken Ham
No problem. I'm glad to have helped out. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Article classification problems?
I just noticed this thread. I have quite a bit of experience with the matter and knowledge of the history. Do you have any questions or concerns? I'd be willing to help. Just let me know. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture
Excellent edit! However, there really is little solid evidence for pain relief. In fact, the evidence that does exist tends to be poorly designed and seems to be not much more than a placebo effect. It's almost impossible to ethically perform a sham stick with a needle. Well, I have never seen you around before, have fun editing. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 01:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I worried about that one. It seems as though there is at least some evidence for efficacy for pain, but, I agree that the evidence is tenuous.  Maybe just a qualifier would work. I worked a bit on Acupuncture a while ago but got bogged down with the WHO statement of efficacy in virtually all fields of medicine.  I am really glad to see that removed.Desoto10 (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

congressional testimony
Hello, it seems that you are thinking that the article talk page is for personal inquiries, stating your opinions and so on. Could you please remove also your edit in the section called congressional testimony? That text is simply appears on every page on that website and has got nothing to do with the testimony. I thought that it is so obvious. And, i'm calling you again, please participate in the discussion in a constructive way, not to make your point, but to allow all the views be represented.Ryanspir (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

peer reviewed
why are you again taking a negative position? Why do i need to prove that a peer reviewed article is indeed peer reviewed? Most links to peer reviewed studies are referenced to their abstracts, thats how it done, just check it in different articles. I think i might have the full study, if you like i might send it to your email. I'm asking you again, assume good faith, be neutral. Ryanspir (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Negative biased approach
Can you please tell me why all of your edits are unbalanced and designated to prove that cs is not effective, dangerous and has no uses? This article is not called 'snake oil medical uses of silver'. Should we rename the article to the one i propose in this message so that your edits will correlate with the name? Ryanspir (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please stop this kind of commentary. Concentrate on the article.  Thanks,  Desoto10 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Funny
It looks funny that on the article which is named medicine uses of silver you didn't do even one positive edit, example to add some information about any kind of medicine use of silver. And it seems that your account is being used by two different people, because i always notice two different styles of writing in your messages. Ryanspir (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I repeat. Please stop this sort of commentary.  Thanks,  Desoto10 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been mentioned
Hi Desoto, as a courtesy I'm letting you know that you have been mentioned here. Thanks... 19:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm clean.Desoto10 (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Was never worried about it in the first place!   03:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Medical uses of silver
Hi - I undid your change to the lead here, but only because it created an orphan ref and I was in the middle of a ref-fixing spree. I've stopped for now, so feel free to reinstate your change (taking care of the ref as necessary) ... Alexbrn talk 07:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries. I figured out what you were doing and figured I would wait for the dust to settle before bludgening ahead.  Thanks for the effort!  Desoto10 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Where would I find information about how NOT to create orphan refs so that I quit doing it?
 * Thanks, Desoto10 (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can explain... in this edit you remove the definition for the ref named "nccam":""The trouble is, in the version of the article the edit created, there was another cite using the ref named "nccam":"although they are not effective for any known condition and carry the risk of serious side effects."This is the orphaned ref. You can detect you have done this (or are about to do this) if you look at the references section, you'll see something like this:{{blockquote|text=^ {{color|red|''' Cite error: Invalid }}Am I explaining it well?    03:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You mean those big bold red warnings that I ignored were important!!!? I think that I have now figured it out and moved the ref down to where it was used next.  I suspect the edit will be reverted anyway.  Thanks for the tips! Desoto10 (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

topical application
Aren't you saying the same thing as zad? When i said effective i meant merely having any kind of proven effect. Ryanspir (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page
I reverted your edit at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) because you deleted many comments. Perhaps you were just trying to add a comment. Not sure. Can you add it again if that's what was going on? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Arg. No, sorry.Desoto10 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS talk
I don't think you meant to delete a bunch of stuff on the talk page here, did you? Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Crap. No I didn't mean to do that. Sorry Desoto10 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback and Thank you
TattØØd Ẅaitre§  '' 04:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Herbalism restructure discussions
Hi. There is a discussion about restructuring the page herbalism that you might be interested in. - Sidelight 12 Talk 12:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Two accounts?
Do you have two accounts? This edit seems to indicate that you do, at least unintentionally. You might want to ask about having the account blocked or deleted to avoid suspicion that might otherwise arise. I see no evidence of nefarious use. HTH -- Scray (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a surprise to me, too. I typed in desoto1 by mistake, put in my normal pw and it logged me in!  I will see about deleting it.  Thanks for the heads-up. Desoto10 (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you asked on my talk page, I thought it might help to show you one way to ask for admin help (when it's not terribly urgent) - apply the template, as I've just done (so help will probably come along soon). For any admin that might come along: In this edit the username  appeared, in a thread where  had been interacting. To me this appears to be a case of a user having inadvertently created a second account (some years ago) by dropping a character (and using the same password), then accidentally rediscovering it today. I see no ill intent, but the user is appropriately concerned about the possibility of disrupting their valid (Desoto10) account. I suppose Desoto10 could redirect Talk:Desoto1 to Talk:Desoto10 and scramble the Desoto1 password, but there may be a more elegant solution.  -- Scray (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Advice from passing admin to Desoto10: no problem, but best to continue using only Desoto10. Obsolete or unwanted accounts are not actually deleted, so redirecting the talk page as suggested is a good idea, and to make everything open and above-board you could use one of the templates from Userboxes/Wikipedia/Related accounts on the user pages of the accounts. Changing the password of one account would ensure that you didn't log in to the wrong one by mistake. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2014 (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) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The 1990 AA Triennial survey
I observe that you removed the link to "Alcoholic Anonymous Recovery Outcome Rates" a few years ago. It is true that this particular paper is not peer-reviewed, however, the contents of this paper have affected how peer-reviewed and other books written by professionals view AA retention. Here are a number of books and papers which claimed the 1990 Triennial survey showed a 5% retention rate before "Alcoholic Anonymous Recovery Outcome Rates" was published:


 * Carl G. Lukefield, "Behavioral Therapy for Rural Substance Abusers", 2000 has this quote: "By 12 months, 90 percent have dropped out (McCrady & Miller, 1993)"
 * Charles Bufe, AA: Cult or Cure 1997 has this quote Quote: "AA produced a large monograph, “Comments on A.A.’s Triennial Surveys,” that analyzed the results of all five surveys done to that point. [...] AA has a 95% new-member dropout rate during the first year of attendance."
 * Charles Bufe, AA: Cult or Cure 1997 has this quote Quote: "AA produced a large monograph, “Comments on A.A.’s Triennial Surveys,” that analyzed the results of all five surveys done to that point. [...] AA has a 95% new-member dropout rate during the first year of attendance."

However, after "Alcoholic Anonymous Recovery Outcome Rates" was published, a number of sources all of a sudden decided that the 1990 Membership retention survey showed a 26% one-year retention rate, which just happens to be the number in that paper. Even anti-AA polemics like Dodes' poorly-argued The Sober Truth now use the 26% figure. For example:



Point being, while "Alcoholic Anonymous Recovery Outcome Rates" was not peer-reviewed, at least one peer-reviewed article and one anti-AA polemic trust its figures, so the paper's conclusions of a 26% one-year retention rate are considered reliable among treatment experts.

That in mind, I have restored this reference to Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous alongside a note that the 1990 Triennial Surveys show a 26% and not 5% retention rate. As Slate Star Codex puts it: "Almost everyone’s belief about AA’s retention rate is off by a factor of five because one person long ago misread a really confusing graph and everyone else copied them without double-checking."

Defendingaa (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)