User talk:EllieC1

The Lightning Process
Thank you for your contribution to The Lightning Process article. Your additions have overwritten or deleted other copy and references without giving an edit summary explaining the changes. I have therefore reverted your edits. If you would like to re-add your material, please feel free to do so, while making to reference to what is currently there. If you wish to make major changes or deletions it is advisable to float these on the |article talk page first, to avoid edit wars and support the aim of making the article the best encyclopaedia entry it can be. The Lightning Process is a tricky subject as it is a branded process designed by one man and is controversial. This can bring up questions of conflict of interest if editors have a close relation with the work (see WP:COI). I'd suggest that this means editors need to be very respectful of Wikipedia guidelines and the work of other contributors. We assume the good faith of other editors. Best wishes and happy editing. Span (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi! In regard to that survey, do you know if the findings have been published elsewhere? I'd very much like to include it, but I have three concerns - the study wasn't conducted by a body recognised for research, as far as I can tell; it was self-published (or appears to be); and it doesn't mention the number of people surveyed who had tried the Lightning Process. It would provide some good balance if we include it, so I'm hoping that there is a bit more detail so that we can provide good context. - Bilby (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A preliminary report was sent to the All Party Parliamentary Group on ME to assist them with their Inquiry into NHS Service Provision and part of the final MEA report has been inserted into the APPG report.

Also a new article has come out in the Times about Patrick Strudwicks recovery from using the Lightning Process. This needs to be added, however the article is behind a paywall so a link cannot be added. Also NRES have now approved the NHS SMILE study. Is there some way we cna include this information to make it more balanced?EllieC1 (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't need a link to use an article - you'll just need to add the full reference. If you have a title I can probably get access to it (I think I have access to all the Times articles), and I'll drop it in. I'd like some better data to go with the MEA report, as the source could be questioned at the moment. Hopefully they plan to publish full data, as that will help a lot. - Bilby (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is called Lightning cure...or a flash in the pan? The Times, Tuesday February 22 2011, page 7-8EllieC1 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI there is also a survey where the LP comes out top on the Kent and Sussex ME Society survey. http://www.measussex.org.uk/Latest-News-About-ME-and-CFS-|-M.E-C.F.S-News/pacing-helps-me.html but of course no one likes to highlight the good points of the LP it seems!:) EllieC1 (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I've added the Times reference, and you seem to have added the Kent and Sussex ME Society survey already - I formatted the reference, though, and brought it a bit more in line with the source, as that way there is less chance of there being a problem. - Bilby (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, i think it's also worth noting that the Lightning Process is not just for ME - this entry makes it sound like it is, however it has multiple applications - as you can see from the LP website home page.EllieC1 (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added that the SMILE study is an NHS study and also removed that it is using children to prove efficacy of the LP - the study is a feasibiliy study to see if it's possible to recruit to a full blown trial. This is outlined on the University of Bristol Website. EllieC1 (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Lightning Process (Nov 2011)
On what grounds are you basing that those three people are not practising The Lightning Process? Don't get me wrong here, I'm not advocating for them in any way, but since it appears at a glance that at least two of them are practising it, I want to make sure we're not removing references that encourage a diversity of information, rather than pulling more and more info all from the same site. If we do that, there's more of a risk that the article could become non-neutral. – RobinHood70 talk 21:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, It seems clear these guys aren't doing the Lightning Process http://www.therowancentre.com/ in that they don't show up in the LP register of practitioners as far as I can see and don't claim to be on their site; do you have any info to the contrary? I just though the link ref was odd based on this... I even wondered, for a moment, if you were them :) kidding EllieC1 (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said, it looks like at least two of them are practising the Lightning Process - the one you cited was the one that doesn't appear to be, at least not directly. Simpson & Faudry appear to be affiliated with The Rowan Centre, but they're claiming that they are using the LP (as linked in the article). Finally, Ian Cleary was easy to locate on the LP register...keep zooming in on Australia; he's in the southwest "corner".


 * If you want to exclude the two from The Rowan Centre because they're not on the register, that's fine, but please be aware that the more links you have to the LP home site, the more likely it is that the article will be deemed to be biased and/or unmitigated advertising, which could lead to its deletion. – RobinHood70 talk 18:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning
Hello EllieC1. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article The Lightning Process, 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, 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 you, 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Given your recent contributions and your user name, I think there is sufficient reason to believe that you are in a conflict of interest. – RobinHood70 talk 21:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)