User talk:DrConcern



Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED). We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:


 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
 * Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Your contribution here is very interesting, but it does not cite a source other than the patent. Wikipedia does not treat patents as reliable sources of information. Could you please identify a wp:MEDRS source for this information? Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, welcome!! Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

hey
you are getting off to a bad start here! Please go the article talk page and discuss your changes. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I can be a little more explicit: We don't accept single studies on animals as any evidence whatsoever of a treatment's efficacy in humans. if you haven't read WP:MEDRS by now, I suggest that you do so before any further editing to medical articles. Here's a relevant section: Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes thanks RexxS will look into it. DrConcern (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Copy and pasting
We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You added "and sent postal questionnaires about known lung cancer risk factors to 250,000 people aged 50–75 years. Four thousand high-risk people joined the trial: half were offered a CT scan of their lungs; the others were not screened. In total, 1,994 people had a CT scan. Forty-two cancers had been found to date, of which 36 (85.7%) were identified at an early stage, so were potentially curable. The NIHR suggested in 2016 that CT screening for lung cancer could be cost-effective"

sent postal questionnaires about known lung cancer risk factors to 250,000 people aged 50–75 years. Four thousand high-risk people joined the trial: half were offered a CT scan of their lungs; the others were not screened. '''In total, 1994 people had a CT scan; 979 of those people had clear scans, 951 needed repeat scans because of a minor change and 64 people had major findings. Forty-two cancers have been found to date, of which 36 (85.7%) were identified at an early stage, so are potentially curable.''' Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , it's possible that DrConcern was misled by the fact that the paper was (to some extent) open-licensed, as shown here. Of course that wording's commercial limitations might not be entirely compatible with use of copies on Wikipedia, but that it is an entirely reasonable error for a new editor here to make. The source was cited, so there clearly can be no implication of plagiarism. Given the number of papers that will have similar clauses in their licensing we really should undertake a systematic approach to the question of just when such licenses permit text to be used verbatim. Of course, paraphrasing is always a safer option. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yah of course. Just bringing it to their attention. No admin action was taken. Just a reminder. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)