User talk:Eubulides/Archive 2

Autism sandbox
If you want this assessment info somewhere, please copy it over. I'm going to db-author it soon. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Medical sources for ASD articles
Eubulides, your attention to detail and continuous incremental improvements to the Autism articles are noted and appreciated. It is about time you created a Barnstars section on your usepage, no? Colin°Talk 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, great job at moving and improving the cites at Heritability of autism. Cheers! Bearian (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You deserve the Order of Hercules, for taking on the task of cleansing this particular Augean stables. Though I don't think such an award exists, yet... MastCell Talk 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Time Measurement and Standards Topics template
I have no problems with edits to the template, including making the title bar match Wikipedia standards of capitalization for readers. This is all fine, and I'm not precious about layout or anything.

But please do not redirect to edit the template. It does not allow updates to reach all of the entries. Thanks. -- Yamara 11:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't say what was technically wrong with your redirect; but only about half of the pages actually redirected and the other half were somehow still showing the old template. This was confirmed by a check of the "What links here" page. This doesn't seem to have been a local cache error on my machine, as I tested it on another machine and other browsers. In any case, I've no objection to your edits (though I took off a couple links for reasons explained on the template's talk page). --I'd have no objection the redirect, either, except it wasn't accepted by all the pages. Is the reason for this known only to server gremlins...? -- Yamara 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)



Reactive attachment disorder
SandyGeorgia kindly peer reviewed this for us and left us some work to do and instructions to ask you (or 2 others who are both busy) to review it further before we apply for FAC. We've done as much as we can and would really appreciate a further review. The discussion with SandyGeorgia is on the project page and my talkpage. Thanks. Fainites barley 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Any more?Fainites barley 21:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I think you can help review how the controversies are handled. Also, to find some way of mentioning researchers that doesn't look like medical-journal-speak, or rephrasing to avoid mentioning them. Clearly, there are a few lead authors in this field that are worth highlighting by name. See my comments on peer-review. Colin°Talk 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Eubulides, I'm trying to help Fainites clean up the refs, which have inconsistent formatting. We're both having problems getting the DOIs right (for example, here).  Do you have time to take a look?  I'll also post to Tim and Colin to see who gets there first.  Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your help. Fainites barley 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bold font on volume
Do we need to adjust WP:MOSBOLD? Where did that come from? I wish the right hand would talk to the left on Wiki. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Peer review/Concussion
Hi Eubulides, I wondered if I could ask a favor. SandyGeorgia recommended that I ask you for a review of concussion. I'd like to get it up to FA eventually. I'd love it if you could comment at the review. There have been several comments at on the writing, but no one has really thoroughly evaluated the accuracy. Any help you could offer would be very much appreciated. Thanks, delldot   talk  09:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you so much, very detailed! I'll work on your suggestions over the next couple days.  Peace,  delldot   talk  08:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for taking so much time to help me, I certainly appreciate it :) delldot   talk  20:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rage Epilepsy deletion
I just got your message today about the proposed (and now done) deletion of my Rage Epilepsy article. Im curious about what the justification for deleting this article were. It was well research, certinaly not nonsense even if the citations were not formated property, but the citations were all there, another more experienced user could have fixed them. The fact that this is a real condition which wikipedia has no article on, which gives those researching it easy access to resources should have been in its favor....I just done see how it was a candidate for speedy deletion ? wikipedia has numerous crappy and non-sensical and plagarized crap articles, why was this article considered so bad ? Dowew (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rotavirus
Dear Eubulides, rotavirus has a short, but important Epidemiogy section. Would you have time to check it? Colin, has provided me with several, very helpful full reviews of the article, but we both would v. much appreciate your critical appraisal of this section in particular and any related issues in the Lead. Best wishes, Graham. --Graham Colm Talk 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Suicidality and Antiepileptic Drugs
Eubulides, could you look at my note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine? I think you might be able to help. If such a study exists, your radar might be able to find it. Thanks, Colin°Talk 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI notification
FYI,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Typo alert (with also had); not sure how you want to fix it, so I left it alone. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RAD
Just to let you know I nominated this for FAC. Fainites barley 21:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Vaccine court
Thanks for the constructive criticism. One thing: IMHO the term "scare," even if used by a quoted source, is a pejorative term that imputes irrationality to those who might merely have valid -concerns- about something. Mbstone (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What if that "concern" has been inspired by irrationality, as well as by hatred of mainstream medicine? -- Fyslee / talk 06:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
Here's how I read it once somewhere, don't remember where. A redirect taxes Wiki's servers. But editing an article only to fix a redirect also taxes Wiki's servers. So, editing only to fix a redirect isn't recommended (which I did), while fixing redirects when you're already editing is recommended, as it avoids future taxing of the server. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Job!
Hi Eubulides,

I just wanted to thank you for your good work on the chiropractic article, especially with respect to cleaning up the referencing to a better format. I'm sure the community appreciates it as well. Cheers. 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Deja moo
Where have I seen this before :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Stimming
For you,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Theory of mind impairment in autism
Hello Eubulides. I created an article called Does the autistic child have a 'theory of mind'? and now, due to some reasons, I have to change the title of the article to Theory of mind impairment in autism. Can I define the theory of mind impairment in autism as the inability to ascribe mental states to oneself and others? I think you can help me on this. I am finding it difficult to define this phrase. Please see the article and give me some suggestions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ah, I was just coming to ask Eubulides to peek in on the progress. I originally prodded the article for notability because it was a summary of one research paper only (Does the autistic child have a 'theory of mind'?), but Masterpiece2000 is working to turn into a more comprehensive article.  Eubulides might be able to help broaden the scope, to make sure it covers more/other research in the area.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Along the same lines, I just removed a lot of WP:PEACOCKery from Simon Baron-Cohen and added several cite tags, in case you are able to complete any of them. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam/COI list
I don't know what this is about, but I had a big fit over it once and got "whitelisted"; now you're on the list, too. If you want to do something about it, I'll have to really dig back in my talk page archives to figure out what I did to get whitelisted. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Know this journal?
Question here, but follow my link to Beetstra's page for more info. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease
Your input would be appreciated on a question re global prevalence at Talk:Alzheimer's disease. LeadSongDog (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Social Stories
Hello,

SandyGeorgia mentioned that I might ask you to look over an article I just helped to significantly edit to get some of your feedback. It is called social stories. Thanks for your help!--Svernon (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=194378722&oldid=194378369

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&oldid=194269776#_note-Edzard_Ernst It was reference 79.

Actually, you did not fix the broken link. The reference was deleted from the entire article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your editng the older version of the Safety section. I have a better version. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you correctly selected the lastest version. I double checked. Continue editing. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User:QuackGuru/Sandbox 4 I suggest we work together in a sandbox such the one I created to NPOV the Safety section. I think it might be impossible to gain consensus on anything that would even come close to NPOV at the talk page. There is a new Neutral point of view/Noticeboard that will help the the current content dispute. We can work together on this along with uninvolved editors from the noticeboard. There is no point to continuing the discussion on the talk page when the proposed draft has already been rejected or being striked out. QuackGuru (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This again QG is tantamount to canvassing which is in poor taste considering the majority of the editors at the chiropractic disagree on your edits based on the quality of the citations and writing. I've already asked you to review Sackett's levels of evidence since you're having difficulty understanding our concerns regarding your edits.  EBDCM (talk) 06:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The best approach is to create an NPOV version of the Safety section and go straight to the noticeboard. The talk page looks like a warzone. QuackGuru (talk) 06:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you claim to be interested in making safety "NPOV" when you cite and refer to Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch? It already is NPOV; and the talk page is exactly where we debate the finer points of the article. EBDCM (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind. I want to update the article right now, including all the proposed drafts and suggestions. QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some info in the 'mixers' section got deleted. The section is short. I thought it was helpful that I expanded it. QuackGuru (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit removed new information I added to the mixers section. Can you add that back in or explain. QuackGuru (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about Fyslee's change which deleted text from the mixers section that described the reformer group. I am talking about your recent edit that deleted info from the mixers section. QuackGuru (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have updated the draft for the minority viewpoint. I hope you have time to improve it. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilk v. AMA, 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990). Wilk vs American Medical Association Summary Here are two refs currently in the article. I am not sure which template is best to use in this case. Any thoughts. Q ua ck Gu ru  00:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to format the refs. Do you know which template I should use for court cases.  Q ua ck Gu ru   02:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see any misunderstanding about the ref improvement issue. I tried to delete the comment. It was restored. See User talk:Vassyana  Q ua ck Gu ru   16:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you ever read my new cost-benefit section or anything in my sandbox 4. If so, what did you think.  Q ua ck Gu ru   02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I already written effectiveness 3 and expanded the lead of scientific investigsation in my sandbox but I had it archived. I made numerous improvements throughout the entire article in my sandbox. Did you ever see any of my improvements to anything I did in my sandbox. I contacted you by e-mail a little while ago about the cost-benefit as soon as I finished. I thought you might have read some of it. But now I assume you did not get my e-mail to review it. Oh well.  Q ua ck Gu ru   16:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The part about authoritative 2004 review is unsourced. The previous ref from effectiveness 1 verifies it.  Q ua ck Gu ru   08:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not serious about adding unverified text using the wrong reference. I have strong objections with the unverified text. In my sandbox 4 I have already fixed it along with my other concerns.  Q ua ck Gu ru   15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I explained on the talk about your recent edits. There is broad consensus among external third-party input for my recent changes. I would appreciate it if you can restore the deleted text. The new RFC supporting my recent change from the exteranl observers is to be respected. Any minor changes or tweaks can be done in mainspace. It was premature to delete text when the external advise approved of the changes. I prefer the internal conflicts at the end of the schools of the thought and practice styles section. You made some tweaks to the internal conflicts information and that made it even better. Thanks.  Q ua ck Gu ru   04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the word "comprehensive" to 2004 review in two sentences. Would it be better for the word to remain or be changed to another word or deleted. Thoughts?  Q ua ck Gu ru   02:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic probation
Hi, it is indeed covered. Please bring it up at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents if you want to have it not be. Lawrence §  t / e  22:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested
- news story on how unusual food preferences may lead to thinner bones in autistic kids. WLU (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * oh, please do pursue this, I've long been interested, having observed spectrum kids with idiosyncratic eating patterns, wondering about the prognosis ... I know one kiddo who seems to live on catsup, with his fries and McNuggets, and who won't eat hardly anything else. This has got to be a big issue for autism spectrum kiddos.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I made this change to Gluten-free, casein-free diet and this change to Autism therapies. Eubulides (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As always Eub, you are a machine and force to be reckoned with. Glad I could help, wish I was less lazy and had added it myself.  Thanks!  WLU (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Misattribution problems
FYI....

In a 1995 report produced by the National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Company (NCMIC), and reported in the JMPT, manipulations administered by a Kung Fu practitioner, GPs, osteopaths, physiotherapists, a wife, a blind masseur, and an Indian barber had all been incorrectly attributed to chiropractors. The report goes on to say:


 * "The words chiropractic and chiropractor have been incorrectly used in numerous publications dealing with SMT injury by medical authors, respected medical journals and medical organizations. In many cases, this is not accidental; the authors had access to original reports that identified the practitioner involved as a nonchiropractor. The true incidence of such reporting cannot be determined. Such reporting adversely affects the reader's opinion of chiropractic and chiropractors."

In a 1999 review of the scientific literature on the risks and benefits of manipulation of the cervical spine (MCS), special care was taken, whenever possible, to correctly identify all the professions involved, as well as the type of manipulation responsible for any injuries and/or deaths. It analyzed 177 cases that were reported in 116 articles published between 1925 and 1997, and summarized:


 * "The most frequently reported injuries involved arterial dissection or spasm, and lesions of the brain stem. Death occurred in 32 (18%) of the cases.....Although the risk of injury associated with MCS appears to be small, this type of therapy has the potential to expose patients to vertebral artery damage that can be avoided with the use of mobilization (nonthrust passive movements)."

For the purpose of comparison, the type of practitioner was adjusted according to the findings by Terrett, thus ensuring that further misattribution did not occur.

The review concluded:


 * "The literature does not demonstrate that the benefits of MCS outweigh the risks. Several recommendations for future studies and for the practice of MCS are discussed."

In Figure 1 in the review, the types of injuries attributed to manipulation of the cervical spine are shown, and Figure 2 shows the type of practitioner involved in the resulting injury.

Refs

I suggest you study the Di Fabio paper carefully. To date, it is still the best research on the subject I know of. Interestingly, even when extra pains have been taken to avoid mistakenly attributing VBAs to the wrong practitioner (and I believe all practitioners should avoid the technique), the statistics (in the charts) still speak for themselves. BTW, Wikipedia actually needs an article on VBA's, as indicated by this. The closest thing we have is Vertebrobasilar insufficiency, and it doesn't deal with traumatic etiology. -- Fyslee / talk 04:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for cleaning up the Vaccine court‎ article. Louis waweru (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

AIDS
Featured article, needing a minor tune-up. Interested? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) HIV at at FAC; you might want to review.
 * 2) Would you like to initiate the WP:FAR on AIDS?  I wouldn't :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Will think about AIDS down the road; thanks for the review of HIV. Genetics is at FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can help with a description of the problems at Featured article review/AIDS? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars survey
Hi Eubulides. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. Just a follow up question for you -- have you ever given a barnstar (or would consider giving a barnstar) to a user participating on pages you don't keep close track of or to users you don't know well? And are specific edits to a page more useful information than any of the statistics in the survey? Thanks again for participating!


 * By 'user you know well' I mean users with whom you are familiar with from editing shared pages or with whom you've communicated on talk pages or in formal processes (e.g. RFAs, FACs, etc). For example, I saw many barnstars being given out for collaborative attitude or for nice user page design, and not for editing in the article space. Bestchai (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Source for AIDS/HIV ma
Image:AIDS and HIV prevalence.svg lists only "UNAIDS" as the source for the data. Can you please clarify whether it's the December 2007 UNAIDS report, or some other version? Thanks. This is needed so that we can put a proper caption and citation on it in the AIDS page. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, well, I would if I could, but I did not create the map, it's only an improvement of the this image, so try to contact the original author, and ask him this, if you want. -- ANONYMOUS  PUSSY ''' 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

EBDCM
Could you give me your opinion of the changes this user has done to my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.45.230 (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific. I don't know what edits are being referred to here, nor do I know what changes EBDCM did to them. Do you have a Wikipedia account? Eubulides (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed chiropractic "is a complementary and alternative medicine health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual therapy" to "is a complementary and alternative medicine health care profession concerned with a range of human diseases including mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes manual therapy", but the user changed it. The article says straights say subluxation is a “primary underlying risk factor for almost any disease” and mixers “treat non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions”. So it's more than musculoskeletal. So who is right?


 * Both versions say chiropractors treat more than musculoskeletal, so in that sense both are "right". I don't see a great advantage of either version over the other. Eubulides (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I also wrote "Chiropractic beliefs vary from vitalism to materialism; these opposing philosophies have been a source of debate" but he altered it to read "Contemporary chiropractic belief systems vary along a philosophical spectrum ranging from vitalism to materialism; these opposing philosophies have been a source of debate ". Do you think mine was better? 125.168.45.230 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One version is shorter, the other gives a bit more detail. The "Contemporary" is redundant and should go, but other than that both versions have advantages. Eubulides (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that Contemporary is redundant; indeed it represents the "maturation" of the profession on many levels. This is also what is referred to as "progressive" paradigm of chiropractic http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-professional-studies.html.  Indeed, I would opine that the evidence-based wing of chiropractic are the contemporary chiropractors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBDCM (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's take the "Contemporary" discussion to Talk:Chiropractic. Come to think of it, all of this discussion should have been on Talk:Chiropractic. Eubulides (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

DC Scope of Practice
Eubulides, want to help me flesh out an acceptable DC scope of practice section? I think PPC would be a good place to start but do not have access to this book currently. What do you think? EBDCM (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

AIDS
AIDS has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 00:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenia
I don't have this source, but this doesn't smell right. Are you able to add anything? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jddarbro -typo correction
Good day to you Eubulides,

Yesterday while reading through the "autism" I discovered an incorrect information listed under the Characteristics Social Development heading.

As stated:

"Autistic toddlers have more striking social deviance; for example they have less eye contact and anticipatory postures and are less likely to use another person's hand or body as a tool. [21]"

According to the evidence listed, autistic toddlers are more likely to use another person's hand or body as a tool.

Within source 21 (which is cited ) I quote:

"They [autistic toddlers] are less likely to use contact and conventional gestures but are more likely to use highly unvoncentional gestures such as manipulating their conversational partner's hand to obtain objects (Stone et al. 1997)."

You can find this quote by looking at the source 21 page 326 (of the pdf) under the heading Communicative Development. It is the last sentence in the second paragraph.

So, there is certainly a misinformation /typo in the current wikipedia "autism" page under the Characteristics Social Development heading.

It should read "Autistic toddlers have more striking social deviance; for example they have less eye contact and anticipatory postures and are more likely to use another person's hand or body as a tool. [21]"

Since this information is listed under the current cite 21, no further citation is needed for this change to be made according to Wikipedian citation standards (although further citation could be done).

Please review this information and let me know what you think.

let's fix this typo! Jddarbro

Sources for the health effects of cigars.
Although the source you have cited for the health effects caused by smoking cigars states that cigars "cause" what is stated. It has not been entirely proven that smoking cigars will cause many types of cancer, including that of the lung and upper digestive tract. It has also not been proven many of these cancers have extremely low cure rates. Although you can say the risks are greater, it is not possible to prove that that is either correct or incorrect. If someone were to smoke a cigar with no other possible health risks, you can't prove that they will have cancer that has an extremely low cure rate. The only accurate way to describe the effects of cigars on any one person in the world would be to put a word or group of words that shows of a possibility of such events. It would an assumption to say otherwise.

Autism Speaks
They're still at it over there :-) I just read the source about the alleged "driving off the bridge" scenario, and it still seems misrepresented in the article.  Do you have more info and can you fix it?  The article doesn't mention the context; that the mother was referencing a desire to avoid a bad school, not so much the autism.  What am I missing?  Can you fill out the context if you know the story and have more sources? The way the story is presented, compared to the one source I read, seems a bit unfair.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC) "The majority of the harsh criticism surrounding the film is directed at Alison Tepper Singer, a mom featured in the film and a staff member of Autism Speaks. About midway through the film, Singer discusses her reaction to inadequate classrooms. 'I remember that was a scary moment for me when I realized I had sat in the car for about 15 minutes and actually contemplated putting Jody in the car and driving off the George Washington Bridge. That would be preferable to having to put her in one of these schools.' It was only because of her other child, she said, that she didn't do it."
 * It's not exclusively about autism (as written at least): I can imagine the same thoughts from people who are now forced to put their children in Hugo Chavez's new brainwashing propaganda forced curriculum schools. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's better for context; thanks ! (Saw an Asperger's story on the front page of CNN.com today, but don't have to digest.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Autism
Yes, and I apologized several hours ago to the editor who fixed it. As I said on his talk page, I can't explain how it happened, but it certainly was not deliberate. - DaveSeidel (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Stimming
I reverted this; I've never seen mention in any literature. Are you aware of any research? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as I suspected. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS
Please weigh in here if you have a chance. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One last wrinkle. Are you happy to remove a couple of options from the list? Colin°Talk 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

AFP TS article
I have the article now and will be reading if/when I get a FAC break, but ... as feared ... the very first source is to a controversial publication from a Baylor physician that included an inaccurate, non-DSM, basic definition of Tourette's that they seem to favor. If this article furthers those non-DSM personal interpretations of TS, that's a big problem. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done; it was mercifully short and not as controversial as their previous publications (which they cite often), but typically not quite as rigorous as the articles I prefer (they cite some of their own publications to give a sense of medical consensus to some areas that aren't as clearcut as they make them out to be). I didn't find anything new and useful.  Anyway, the paper's strengths are where Baylor's strengths typically are; although they have furthered some controversial notions on TS in the past, they are the go-to guys on tourettism, secondary causes of tics, and differential diagnosis.  A lot of the tourettism info goes over my head, but there is some good info here that could be used to upgrade our article, if you're interested in giving it a go?  What is in our article now is info I pulled together from several different places (mostly them, but how to weave it together was hard for me), and some of it got messed up a bit when a physician new to Wiki (who turned out to know nothing about tics, and later left Wiki) tried to help. If you've got time, this article could really be helpful in completing the tourettism article.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You may find
You may find the information quote "which I find less than useful". But think of the newbie hitting that 'edit this page' tab for the first time. Just because you are experienced others may not and may need direction. A comment left on the articles page is information being conveyed to other editors, who might not be as knowledgeable as you. pete 16:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to see
Just letting you know:   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

sports chiro AfD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_Chiropractic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sports_Chiropractic Their talkpage is the funniest part. Are you allowed to say wankers on wikipedia? Mccready (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

FAR revisit
Featured article review/AIDS has been up for over a month now; would you mind revisiting concerns to discuss whether issues have been addressed, and to enter a Remove or Keep declaration as appropriate? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like TimVickers and OrangeMarlin have decided to engage and try to clean it up. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Autism rights movement
Hola Eub,

I think it's a bit out of your purview, normally I'd ask Sandy but she's taking a break and I'm more than happy to leave her to that. Would you mind having a look at this? I don't think you've touched ARM, but I don't know how reliable the source is so I'm reluctant to even integrate. Thanks, WLU (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

DOI bot
Hi, thanks for your feedback on DOI bot! To keep the discussion coherent, I've replied on my talk page, and would welcome your response there. All the best, Smith609  Talk  22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ASD in Males and Females
About the ASD in Males and Females I added to Aspergers. You're right, it should just be about aspergers. But you can check the links to see that these are all actually about Aspergers but it applies to ASD as well so I made it ASD to cover both bases but you're right, it shouldn't say ASD here. I am reposting with AS. (I am quite knowledgeable in the subject because I have aspergers. They pay me to study me at Mt Sinai in NYC)

Drewhamilton (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

freely available
Hi - thanks for the link - Kaptchuk & Eisenberg 1998 (PMID 9818801). - you write "freely" available. How do I get from to the full paper? (This is rather exciting cause if this one is freely available then more of other links that I can only read the abstract of may also be accessible. my beating heart be still.) SmithBlue (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC) That last link worked fine. But for me the NCBI PubMed title is just black letters with no hypertext. Am using Firefox - maybe IE will be different. Have formed opinion that WP editors should have online journal access. (smile) Thanks SmithBlue (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Savant syndrome
I've been chipping away at the mess there (including the ignored Requests for checkuser/Case/Aetoss) for months, but it may be to a point now that you might be able to take it to the next level (that is from negative something to about a zero :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Scahill
Never thought I'd see the day :-)   Scahill cited on autism! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not such a small world ... those guys are the best, and Larry Scahill is one of the best of the best. And, since Volkmar got the slot when Cohen died, well, the future is in autism research :-)  Anyway, Scahill knows risperidone and psychopharm like nobody's business.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Son-Rise Program

 * Dear User: Eubuildes,


 * I do not know how to follow that reference you told me about. When I clicked on it. I was only able to find multiple stores around the globe with the

book. But, I was not able to even search through the book. So, I am not able to find what you are talking about. But, I think the article should not state choose or decide. Because, Son-Rise does not help the kid think, "I have autism and I choose (or decide) not to have autism anymore." It's a neurological disorder where part's of your brain is mixed up. But, Son-Rise gets the child to trust the person by knowing that they are not judged and someone likes what they like. Which is ASD's main core "trusting to want to socialize and communicate." Then, once the child learns to trust the person. They, then smile and make eye contact, because they want to and slowly, by slowly (if they are lucky) recover. They don't choose not to have autism. They choose, to smile, eye contact, play etc. For example, you can't (choose or decide) not to have Anxiety disorder. But, they can choose to listen to the advice about what can help them not be anxious and want to use the advice.


 * I think we should not cite that context and put "The child will eventually want to look at you, and/or do the given task." So what every Bears Kaufman said, doesn't make sense. I don't think we should cite that piece, he should of described that part differently. Thanx! Please reply back at my talk page! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism
Dear Eubuildes, I posted a comment at the end of the Autism's talk page. I am wondering if you can answer it. Thanx! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Autism
I made a comment on the Autism talk page. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Trichotillomania
I don't have access to the full-text study, so I don't know if this is vandalism or a correction. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have no sources there, and have just been trying to keep it clean.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic 3rr warning
A note you left on my talk page suggests that you may not precisely understand WP:3RR, and may have accidentally violated it.

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Now, there are exceptions, such as removal of clear vandalism or (sometimes) edits in violation of clear consensus (but not major changes made without consensus), removal of WP:BLP violations, and possibly removal of any edit by a banned editor. And, of course, a consecutive series of edits is considered to be at most one revert, regardless of how many edits that may be partial reverts in that set of edits.

But I think you may have accidentally violated 3RR, as I see 5 series of edits in the last 24 hours, each of which has a single edit which states it is removing part of a previous edit. Now, replacing a fact tag with a source is not a "reversion", unless that source was previously removed. Replacing an unreliable source with a fact tag is more likely to be a revert, as it's probable (especially in this article) that someone previously applied the fact tag.

Be careful. I'd prefer that the disruptive 3RR violators be blocked, but, as an involved admin, it would be improper for me to choose 3RR violaters to report on any subjective grounds. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note added to Arthur Rubin's talk page. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic
Hi Eubulides, I just wanted to thank you for the effort you have put forward in drafting the various effectiveness sections. This recent edit war over at Chiropractic really shows the difference in editting styles. It highlights how if a draft section is put on the talk page, discussion can occur without the frustration that occurs during edit wars, and a consensus can be obtained on exactly HOW to word the text. It is much more of a collaborative system than the BRD cycle. DigitalC (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! The BRD cycle is only useful on small, uncontroversial articles with few or no currently active editors. On controversial articles that are being watched and edited by groups with strong POV it encourages disruptive, solo, uncollaborative editing which inevitably leads to edit wars and lock downs. It is then a very destructive method to follow and should not be used at all. I wish we could formulate a modification to that essay explaining this. -- Fyslee / talk 05:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Eubulides. I replied to some of the comments you made on Education 3, and hopefully improvements will be made to the draft. In replying, I refactored your large comment into smaller sections by copying your signature so that I could reply in a threaded fashion. If you object to this in any way, please let me know and I will self revert. DigitalC (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Following up on the above, I just came across this; I wanted to let you know that concerns were raised here and followed up on here. MedCab is strictly volunteer, can often be worse than a waste of time, actually causing damage, and other venues of dispute resolution have better reputations and are more likely to be effective. I think a complex and controversial topic would benefit from input from editors experienced with controversial medical topics. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that unless the MedCab actually follows all aspects of the evidence and not limit itself to biased "reviews" and the bait wikilawyering under a myopic adherence to MEDRS guidelines this is a recipe for disaster. You're suggesting that we bring chiropractic medicine in and get dissected by the mainstream medical community who have historically tried to contain, eliminate and marginalize the chiropractic profession.  In fact, I openly consider the majority of edits introduced by Eubulides attempts to subvert, marginalize or introduce controversy to article and destabilise it.  He has failed to achieve consensus for ANY of his proposed edits, in part, because his edits which are supposedly promoting the mainstream view, are mostly against what the MAJORITY POV of mainstream medicine. For example, Eubulides' recent "effectiveness" draft of spinal manipulation (which is a synthesis of chiropractic, osteopathic, allopathic and physical therapy researchers) suggests there is no agreement of benefit for spinal manipulation with low back pain.  This "conclusion" that Eubulides has concocted with a cherry picking of literature to promote a skewed POV of a topic.  First and foremost, the majority of the literature suggests SMT is effective for acute and chronic LBP.  It's pretty well understood fact.  It's been researched for 25 years and the majority of studies agree, that yes, spinal manipulation is generally effective for mechanical, non-specific LBP.  This is why the American College of Physicians have included spinal manipulation in the 2007 Clinical Practice Guidelines.  In fact, the Chiropractic and Allopathic CPG for Nonspecific LBP management is virtually identical.  Unbelievably, Eubulides objects to include the expert review that led to the US Allopathic CPGs led by Dr. Chu!  Has wikipedia and chiropractic skeptics sank so far as to prevent the inclusion of an expert review article in Annals of Internal Medicine?  Because Eubulides has objected to the inclusion of the American College of Physicians very own practice guidelines.

Lastly, SandyGeorgia, is it customary for experienced editors (such as yourself) to act as proxies or a personal communications officer and lobby an adminstrator (Arthur Rubin) as you did here who has rebuked Eubulides for potentially engaging in a covert edit war at Chiropractic? Because, for the record, myself and many other editors there have had major issues with Eubulides style of editing and have had a very difficult time communicating with him our concerns regarding his edits which have not yet been addressed over the past 4 months now. CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply at CorticoSpinal's talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Canterbury Tales
Can you please change the position of the image located at the top of this article? Don't you think that a long image at the top looks bad?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Query on presenting numbers
Eubulides, I wonder if you could comment at Featured list removal candidates/List of HIV-positive people regarding the best way to express the number infected worldwide. We don't know whether it is best to quote the precise number from the source, even though it may then look falsely accurate, or round it. Cheers, Colin°Talk 13:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good change to the lead there. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: SteveBot
Hi there. Just thought i'd let you know it's my fault about the duplicate banners on the pages you mentioned to Steve, I forgot to tell him i'd already added some templates. I apologise for the inconvenience, i'm now looking to see if there are any more duplicates out there. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">CycloneNimrod Talk? 16:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

DST Energy Savings
Hi... I included DST as a technology on the solar energy page a while back. I've since removed it pending review. I'd like to know if you would judge DST a solar energy technology? The best report I could find to back up the energy savings benefits of DST came out of California. Recently I added up the daily/monthly energy savings from the report and found an overall savings of .002 exajoules/year. This is equal to a fifth of 1% of total electricity use in California. What is your opinion of the energy savings of DST? Does the added activity basically wash out the energy savings? Is it all regionally determined? Just wondering... Cheers Mrshaba (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Too good eh... Thanks. Mrshaba (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That works... Thanks Mrshaba (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Son-Rise
Dear User:Eubuildes, Sorry, I did not try to start an edit war with you. The problem is, is that the exact same text is underneath Effectiveness and it's a little odd to have it in two places. Thanx! A T  C   (talk)  20:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (Just to let you know, I changed my signature from AnnieTigerChucky to ATC. I am letting you know this, just in case you're confused.)

RE: Son-Rise and plurals
Dear Eubuildes, that is odd, I guess I was thinking of first names. Okay, I will revert the edit since a reliable website, wrote it the same way. Can you please reply to the other comment above, though. Thanx! A T  C   (talk)  21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Henry Oliver Walker
I'm not terribly experienced at editing Wikipedia, but thank you for the work you did on the Henry Oliver Walker page. The images are arranged very nicely - and thank you for including the image of Lyric Poetry. However, you edited out a large portion of information which you thought was inappropriately posted. In the footnotes section of the essay I had stated that it was posted on Wikipedia by the original author, who happens to be me. Someone more familiar with Wiki advised me that it was okay to post the essay "under GFDL," and that person also formated the essay for me to abide with Wiki guidelines. I was under the impression that I could post it if it is original, properly referenced research.

I thank you for your efforts to keep the page clean and to protect copyrights. I think it would be fine to leave the page the way it is right now, though. No need to edit the essay back in. If people are truly interested in learning more about Walker they will visit HenryOliverWalker.com and see the essay there. If you don't mind me asking, how did you come across Walker's page in the first place? He's such an obscure (and underrated) artist that I would be interested to know how you discovered him and the image of Lyric Poetry.

Thanks... --Arthistoryguy (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Spectrum disorder
Just rewritten, might need review. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, I am still on Wikipedia
Pedantic, prosody, and habituation were the main ones.

Tezkag72 (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

could you please do me a favor?
Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?


 * 1) 	I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
 * 2) 	I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

J n  W talk 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost Dispatches
Eubulides, sample Dispatches, published in the Signpost are at ; would working on this with Laser brain interest you? Please respond over there to keep it all in one place, and if you decide to participate, the temporary workspace will be WP:FCDW/June 30, 2008. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Goodness. I feel so stupid.  Until reading what Tim has already written there, I had never seen the "Review" tab, which just led me to this, a free review !!  Gosh, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony's been there, in case you want to take another look. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for help with Schizoid personality disorder article
A recent editor wrote this in the lead of the Schizoid personality disorder article:


 * Schizoid personality disorder is a schizophrenia spectrum disorder like schizotypal personality disorder[3]Sula Wolff concluded that schizoid personality disorder is essentially the same disorder as asperger syndrome.[4]

The same editor justified this addition on the talk page here. I am not knowledgeable enough about 'spectrum families', nor the proposed synonymity of Asperger's and schizoid PD, and so wondered if you could check the validity of this addition to the lead? From my reading on the subject I assumed that schizophrenia was more closely related to Schizotytpal PD moreso than schizoid and Asperger's disorders.

Thank you in advance for any clarification you may be able to offer on this topic. 124.186.191.226 (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with Original Research
Hi Eubulides,

I’m a professor at Boston College doing a study on medical information on Wikipedia. I’d like to ask some editors a few questions about their experience. The questions can be found at my userpage user:geraldckane/medsurvey. You are one of the first people I have contacted, I’d also appreciate any feedback about 1) the questions themselves, 2) the methods we are using, 3) other general comments you might have.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Thank You,

geraldckane (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I certainly understand. If you change your mind, I am most intersted in: 1) the source of your medical knowledge and 2) your motivation for contributing to medical articles. I have already reviewed your edit history in some detail prior to contacting you. No need to respond unless you care to address the items above. Thank you for your time. geraldckane (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Preserved Smith"
When I saw your reference to Preserved Smith at Template talk:Cite paper, my milk almost came out my nose! I had to check, thinking it might be something like a Pressed Rat! Thanks for the laugh! RossPatterson (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thiomersal controversy and Mark Geier

 * FYI. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is the selenium review not reliable?
MEDRS says nothing about PubMed. PubMed itself notes that its index is not an endorsement. The website for the journal, www.smdj.sc, shows the editorial board and peer reviewers, most of which have PhDs (others have MDs). According to Google Scholar, it has been cited by these papers.Most significantly, Ralston has 19 papers on PubMed; Raymond LJ has 2. I'm glad that you brought it up, however, as in the process I found PMID 17916948, which specifically addresses the selenium and methylmercury issue. Check it out. I have access to the paper if you want to look at the full-text. II | (t - c) 09:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources Dispatch
Eubulides, I'm not sure when we will run it, but Awadewit and Laser are working in draft: User:Laser brain/Dispatch  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Five point scale
I have removed the prod tag from Five point scale, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!
 * That's the strangest prod tag removal I've ever seen. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Spine
Regarding Spine and Spine J, what are you using to state that these are different publications? When I did a search for journals with the word "Spine" in the title, I found: Generally it's not a good idea to change a redirect to a redlink. Could you perhaps create a stub there, to indicate which publication that you think it's referring to? Thanks, Elonka 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Spine (journal) (published by Elsevier)
 * European Spine Journal (published by Springer, abbreviation Eur Spine J)
 * Joint Bone Spine (which redirects unhelpfully to Elsevier)
 * Internet Journal of Spine Surgery (published by Internet Scientific Publications LLC)
 * World Spine Journal (official journal of the World Spine Society)
 * Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine
 * Excellent resource, thank you. I went ahead and created a stub at The Spine Journal, and will continue to work on the others as I have time.  --Elonka 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Autism
Etcetera? I know you can do better :-))   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried, but the PMID doesn't tell me what the "etc." or "other of these conditions" refers to. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"gives people signs during" or "gives signs during"
I spotted an edit adding that "people" word. Your thoughts on the subject. Logictheo (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion
Hi Eubulides, I found the review you did of concussion very useful, I wondered if you'd be willing to give the epidemiology section of pulmonary contusion a review. I'd like to take it to FAC but I don't know how close it is to being ready. Specifically, I'm not sure if the mortality rate info should go under Epidemiology or Prognosis. Any help you could offer would be great, otherwise can you point me to someone who might help out? Thanks much! By the way, the Signpost dispatch you did was great, very useful! delldot  talk  15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey again, sorry to keep bugging you. If you don't want to review the epidemiology section, no problem, but could I ask a different favor?  I wondered if you would look at the sources and let me know if you see any problems with them.  Thanks much!  delldot   talk  20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Website claims APA licensing of DSM-IV
Can you peek at Talk:Schizophrenia; if it can be verified, it's great news. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your dispatches article and Plagiarism
Hi there. I noticed you wrote the following at Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches:"'Some sources are in the public domain. These include many U.S. government publications, such as the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. You can incorporate public-domain text into a Wikipedia article without infringing copyright, which can help you write an article on a new topic quickly. However, in such cases you should follow scholarly practice and cite the source, putting quotation marks around direct quotations, or using the blockquote facility for longer quotations. The amount of directly quoted text can sometimes be minimized by working it into the grammar of a Wikipedia sentence. It is often better to paraphrase a source (without quotation marks but with attribution), which allows you to summarize it, improve the wording, and turn it into an encyclopedic register.' -" Do you think you could help out at Plagiarism and give your views on how to properly use PD text? There is a huge amount of discussion on the talk page, but what I've tried to say in the nascent guideline is this:"'A clear distinction should also be drawn between: work submitted by Wikipedia editors as their own work (which can be 'edited mercilessly'); work marked as reflecting other people's actions or words (which can be edited as long as the original sense is not lost); and direct copying of large blocks of public domain work written by other people (in which case, more care is needed). Incremental editing of this last sort of 'block copying' may distort what was copied - leaving the text as a direct quote may be the better option.' - from Plagiarism" Your opinion would be much appreciated, plus those of others you think might be interested. Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the change at the proposal. There is some rather heated discussion on the talk page. Would you have time to look at that? One of the points, which I agree with, is that instead of removing the 1911 template completely, it is better to replace it with a less obtrusive note that says that earlier versions of the article were based on 1911 text, but that the revision and updating process is now complete. That would help the 1911-project people keep track of progress as well - simply removing the template causes the article to drop off their lists. Carcharoth (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks
Eubulides, about your recent edit at Chiropractic. The consensus at the talkpage, and per the WP:REDLINKS guideline, is that redlinks are acceptable. I did not see anyone at the talkpage agree with your proposed course of action, so you appear to have acted in violation of talkpage consensus. Please reconsider. --Elonka 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology
Hi, I hate to bother you, but do you have any references to prove this journal is notable? Can you add more to this stub than a definition? Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I made a note on that talk page. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jones and Bartlett Publishers
A tag has been placed on Jones and Bartlett Publishers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Leonard( Bloom ) 23:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Chase your tail much lately?
I'd weigh in with my opinions on WP:OVERLINKing but I know better than to go anywhere those pages. What an utterly silly endeavour and way for one of our best medical editors to be spending time. I suggest that the person creating all the red links should be the person stubbing them. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

DSM-IV
Can you check out our DSM-IV proposal and provide any feedback? Mindsite (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The response at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights leaves me nowhere; I don't understand copyright or Fair Use and don't want to have to learn it. What's the bottom line?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

ICD-9
Why are we still linking to ICD 9 in the box? There's some rather questionable adverts appear with it on the RAD one! Fainites barley 15:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder actually! Forgot about respiratory wotsit. Annoying isn't it about the ads. There's some advertising the very misdiagnosis the article warns about. I took it out but I suppose I'll have to put it back. Really I was wondering what use ICD 9 is in an encyclopaedia and whether we actually needed it in. Fainites barley 20:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of Tourette syndrome in particular (and Infoboxes in general), I strongly object to hoisting inaccurate info on readers because some stupid infobox requires it. I solved it by simply delinking ICD9 from the TS infobox (it was grossly inaccurate), although the article is still stuck with a bunch of Comings' crap via other links imposed on it from the infobox.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that mean its OK if I just remove the link from ICD 9 then? Hooray. Fainites barley 20:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It means it's OK until/unless someone complains :-) Look at Tourette syndrome. I left the ICD9 code, but not the link; the link was rubbish.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Inspired by that, I did the same to Autism and to Asperger syndrome. The icd9data.com web pages are not that useful anyway, even when you ignore the ads. Eubulides (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD notice
Someone has decided to AfD a bunch of stubs on academic journals that you just created. The list is here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not usually a good idea to create bare stub articles on things that will not appear obviously notable. For information and advice about what counts in journal articles, see WP:WikiProject Academic Journals, and take note of the infobox that is used for them. Please also be aware of the distinction between a peer-reviewed journal and a professional magazine. I am going to fix up some of these as fast as possible, but I am not really happy doing things like this in a rush.  All or almost all of the articles are in my opinion fully defensible, but it would have been better to have not needed to defend them. Please don't make work for others, especially rush work under pressure of threatened deletion. Obvious that goes for the nom(s) also: they should have improved them rather than tried to delete them, but the person who starts it  bears the primary responsibility for writing a reasonable article. If the type of article is unfamiliar, follow a good model, or ask for assistance. DGG (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to this, Eubulides doesn't think these articles are notable. I can agree that wikilinking these journals is annoying, and now the people who did wikilink them have one less thing to do, I suppose. II  | (t - c) 02:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested
Here. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 15:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnson
Samuel Johnson is (eventually) FAC-bound; can you help out here? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Pivotal response therapy
An IP has been citing the article, so I cleaned it up. I have none of the sources, and have never heard of PRT. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Retract; I found free full text on many of the sources, but I haven't read them. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon picture
thanks, Tom (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Reviews" and other dumb questions
Eubulides, I'm backtracking through all of the citations at TS to restore the review sources that I long long ago replaced with some primary sources. I got off on the wrong track last night with the idea that I'd track down impact factors first to decide which reviews to use most often; now I see that was a wild goose chase. I'm going to have a lot of dumb questions. For example:
 * On the TS talk page, you mentioned that PMID 18496480 was a review that I could use to replace some other sources. But when I look at those magical tabs in PubMed (that I wasn't aware of before Tim and you wrote the Dispatch), they don't indicate it's a review.  Can I trust the PubMed tab?  What factor leads you to call it a review?
 * As a followup to that, at what point is it OK to cite work that is replicated and reported by several other sources, even if those other sources aren't classified in the PubMed tab as a Review?
 * I'm trying to find an automated way to backtrack. At one point, I had all review sources, but someone somewhere at the MED project told me to cite the primary studies when I had them. Also, this was in 2006, and I was reading comments at FAC about the importance of not over-relying on one source, so I actually tried to increase the number of sources by looking up the primary sources and adding them; now I've got to go backwards.  I thought a fast way to work backwards (so I don't have to manually sort through my file full of papers) would to enter the journal article title into http://scholar.google.com, click on the "Cited by" links, and pick out one of the reviews I know I have.  At least that will show me where to look for each citation.  For example:
 * Abuzzahab FE, Anderson FO. "Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome; international registry". Minnesota Medicine. 1973 Jun;56(6):492–6. PMID 4514275
 * Cited in Kurlan Kushner book and Coffey 2000 PMID 11038344
 * Bliss J. "Sensory experiences of Gilles de la Tourette syndrome". Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1980 Dec;37(12):1343–47. PMID 6934713
 * Cited in Leckman Lancet 2002, Cohen Leckman 1994 PMID 8138517
 * Leckman JF, Zhang H, Vitale A, et al. "Course of tic severity in Tourette syndrome: the first two decades" (PDF). Pediatrics. 1998;102 (1 Pt 1):14–19. PMID 9651407. Retrieved on October 28, 2006.
 * Cited in Leckman Lancet 2002 and Robertson Brain 2000.
 * Am I on the right track with this? Is the sort of work I need to do, and am I going about it the best way?

If you don't mind, I'll follow your talk so you can thread your responses and the conversation isn't split. Thanks for any advice you can give me, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PMID 18496480 says it's a literature review in its title. That article is so recent that Pubmed hasn't categorized it as a review yet (though I expect it will be, eventually). In some cases articles aren't so tidily categorized as reviews; for example, Joss et al. 2008 (PMID 17476528) is both a primary study and a review. Eubulides (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Deciding whether a primary study is seminal is a judgment call. The Darwin example in WP:MEDRS is purposely over-the-top, as there's no question Darwin is seminal. A work doesn't necessarily have to be cited in reviews to be seminal, but it would be very odd for a seminal work not to be mentioned by later reviews on the same topic. Eubulides (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Google Scholar approach sounds reasonable; it's what I'd do. My goodness, though, this sounds like it'll be a lot of work. I assume this is not high-priority? I don't expect it'll change the contents of the TS article that much, right? Unless this is a labor-of-love situation I expect that you could simply prefer new reviews as you rewrite the article anyway (as new science comes in, or as clarification requests and/or other work comes in from other editors). Eubulides (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Eubulides, this helps. I did locate three new-ish reviews last night (not freely available), so I'm getting hold of them; yes, that would be the faster route to modernizing the citations.  The mention of reviews within five years in the MEDRS discussion concerned me, as several of the main sources at TS are now eight years old.  Not high priority, but I just have to dig in and do the work; it's not that the content will change much (because I wrote the article from the preponderance of research that enjoyed consensus among the TS experts, which only now do I see in the PubMed tabs are mostly reviews or primary sources I cited from the reviews when I had both), as much as I feel like TS must conform very closely to MEDMOS and MEDRS because of my position as FAC delegate.  Besides, not knowing which I had switched out to primary sources, I need to check all of them.  Also because the description you all gave in the MEDRS discussion (about directly citing seminal research) makes sense, so for the article to be the best it can be, I should go back and do that.  For example, I need to check the Kurlan Kushner book or other sources, but I'm pretty sure that Bliss was the beginning of the understanding of premonitory urges, so I might consider a specific mention (as many TS reviews do).  Another question:  the Swerdlow paper (PMID 16131414) is not a review, but a summary of current controversies from the outgoing TSA Medical Advisory Board chair. It was such an excellent summary of "the battlefield".  I think it is fine for the purposes for which I use it, even though it's not a review?  I'm chipping away at this, so will probably work on it in dribs and drabs, aiming for a re-read of the entire article when I have a long plane trip end of August.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have easy access to Swerdlow but from your summary it looks like a fine source as you describe. Opinion pieces are to some extent neither fish nor fowl; they are closer to secondary than to primary sources, but since they are opinion they need to be treated much more carefully. In Autism I had a similar situation with Happé et al. 2006 (PMID 17001340), an influential opinion piece that Pubmed marked as a review. It is a fine source but it needed to be summarized more cautiously. Eubulides (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Eubulides; I'll keep picking my way through this, but for now, I'm waiting to get my hands on the three newer reviews (Gilbert, 2006, treatment, PMID 16970870; Singer, Lancet 2005, PMID 15721825; and Swain, Scahill, Lombroso, King, Leckman, 2007, PMID 17667475). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have all three of these reviews now; goodness, I could re-cite the entire article, but so much of it is just a repeat of earlier info. Unsure now how to best focus my efforts.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Next question: :-))


 * Jackson GM, Mueller SC, Hambleton K, Hollis CP. "Enhanced cognitive control in Tourette Syndrome during task uncertainty". Exp Brain Res. June 14, 2007; PMID 17569034

and


 * Mueller SC, Jackson, GM, et al. "Enhanced Cognitive Control in Young People with Tourette's Syndrome".  Current Biology.  2006 Mar 21;16(6):570–73.  PMID 16546080

cited at the end of prognosis are not mentioned or summarized in these (three newer) reviews, but they are mentioned at PMID 18056159 http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/awm278v1.pdf ... Is Brain a "good" journal, should I re-do the entire discussion to include the differences in findings, or completely remove the discussion pending mention in a review? The Brain article agrees that a compensatory mechanism is at work but disagrees with Mueller's conclusions regarding comorbidity. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reviews are not necessarily new enough to cover 2006 and 2007 primary studies, right? The most recent review (Swain et al. 2007, PMID 17667475) was accepted 2007-03-13 and was probably first submitted months earlier (too bad the article doesn't say). If so, then we're in the dicey situation of summaring research that we have no reliable review for. In that case, Baym et al. 2008 (PMID 18056159) might be the best we can do as a "reviewish" source for the area, but some care must be taken since Baym et al. will have a previous-work section that reflects their preconceptions. Are these independent and competing research groups? If so, that is better than if they're all one big happy family. Certainly Brain is a "good" journal, but you know my opinion of using impact factors to judge research.... Eubulides (talk)
 * To answer your other questions: I can't easily judge whether to remove or rewrite the discussion without knowing the subject more intimately. If your impression is that the recent primary studies reflect a strong consensus that the new work is important and high-quality and reflects mainstream consensus, then by all means mention the work and cite it; if the impression is that it's controversial or maybe not-that-applicable or whatever, then it might be better to rewrite/remove it. Eubulides (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of this group at Davis, and since UC Davis now has the M.I.N.D. institute, funded partly for TS research, one would think anyone worth their salt (and most of the research subjects) would be over there. No, I don't think they're one big happy family, but I've got to do some more digging on this; not sure there's enough to go on here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's for real. Silvia Bunge (the P.I. author of Baym et al.) works with Corbett of M.I.N.D. and wears at least 3 hats (UCD Center for Mind and Brain, UC Berkeley Psychology Dept., Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute). See, for example Corbett et al. 2008 (PMID 18487023), published a couple of months ago, and also about TS. Eubulides (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eubulides; that helps a bit. I still need to read the full Baym article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

July 28 Dispatch
A ways off still, but Laser has moved it in to FCDW/July 28, 2008. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 11:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

dates
Eubulides, thanks for your enquiry. Please see my talk page for my response. Tony  (talk)  16:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Impact factors at RSN
FYI,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
As a sometimes editor of the autism page, as a psychologist, and as the father of an autistic boy (who rocks the world, but I may be biased) I want to thank you for your hard work on the page. I don't think people hear good stuff enough on their talk pages, so well, umm, here is some good stuff...Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Genetic factors for autism
Since you have moral certainty that genetics cause autism spectrum disorder, I'd appreciate your exact citation as to precisely what genetic markers cause this disorder. I'm sure the researchers at CHOP, Albert Einstein Medical College, and other research centers I've consulted would like to know, so they can stop spending money on further research. --Leifern (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Again
Secondary sources are being discussed again, this time at WP:MEDMOS but most certainly going to spill over into WP:MEDRS. Your views welcomed. JFW | T@lk  13:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Howard Staunton
Sorry for bothering you on your user page, but I think it's better this way. While working on User:Philcha/Sandbox I realised that I'd forgotten just how murky the whole affair was. For example (I can provide sources whenever needed):
 * Morphy was legally a minor when he left for England, and turned 21 shortly after arrival.
 * Since his family were opposed to his playing chess matches for money (pro chess players did not have high social status), he told them only that he wanted to play in the Birmngham tournament, originally scheduled for late June 1858 but postponed to Aug 1858 by the time Morphy arrived - otherwise they could have forbidden him to go, at least until he came of age, and then money would have been an issue (see below).
 * It was publicly reported in the USA that Morphy's aim was to play in the Birmngham tournament.
 * The single most controversial incident of the whole affair was the "Anti-book" letter of late Aug 1858, widely thought to have been written by Staunton, but without any actual evidence for this. This letter said no date could be fixed for the match until Morphy actually had the money for his share of the stake. This is credible as I can quote an instance where Mason withdrew a challenge to Zukertort, "circumstances having arisen that make it highly inconvenient for me to proceed ..."
 * Although Morphy later claimed that this was a slur, in fact when he wrote to the USA asking for the money, in late July 1858 his family refused (see above) and an old friend then persuaded the New Oleans Chess Club to ante up.

As a result User:Philcha/Sandbox compresses the account a bit, but less than I'd hoped.

I don't know whether you've reviewed articles about serious historical controversies, where the participants and often the historians have their own agendas - for example some well-known historians have well-known political leanings which influence their accounts. If you haven't reviewed any historical controversies, it might be helpful if you could ask someone who has to advise us both - the Staunton-Morphy affair makes the average paleontology controversy look fairly simple, as at least the actual fossils don't have agendas. Documents Pertaining to Paul Morphy has links to quite a few relevant items, some of which I've cited (February 4, 1858; 2 of April 3 1858; everything from July 1858 to Oct 9 1858; everything from Oct 17 1858 to Oct 26 1858; everything Nov 3 1858 to Dec 4 1858 except Nov 18 1858). -- Philcha (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "I expect that even Daylight saving time is more controversial than Howard Staunton" - thanks for starting my day with a laugh. - Philcha (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you again, but could you please have a look at User:Philcha/Sandbox and User:Philcha/Sandbox, and let me know what you think. Re the latter, The Staunton-Morphy controversy now contains details of the events, including copies of the most important letters and articles from the time. -- Philcha (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put up a new draft on the Staunton-Morphy controversy at User:Philcha/Sandbox. I've severely pruned the account of the events of 1858. Even I felt that the previous version was a too long. I also feel that a selective summary would be very POVish - almost every incident tilts the balance one way or the other, and at a couple of points the exact sequence of events (to the day) is important, along the lines of "what did he know and when did he know it?". OTOH I think the handful of sentences in this draft reflects the rather narrow range of generally agreed points - after that, accounts diverge sharply in their selection and presentation of the facts and "facts".
 * Given the tight timescale, I'll have to incorporate this draft into the main article if I get no comments in 24 hours.
 * I've also incorporated into the main article a slightly shorter version of "Personality". -- Philcha (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless, of course, you decide in the meantime that the article should be GA any way, in which case the chess gang can sort out the complexities at leisure.
 * I belatedly noticed that you'd posed a very short "outstanding issues" mesage about a couple of cite errors (fixed now), while I was composing User:Philcha/Sandbox and the message above. -- Philcha (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help - and your patience. I don't know about Daylight saving time, but I suspect Staunton is the most controversial character in chess history. -- Philcha (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Staunton2.jpg
Hello Eubulides, you left a message at User talk:Bubba73 that the Image:Staunton2.jpg was of dubious nature and non-free. As this picture is more than 100-years-old, I would expect it to be free of any copyright. Could you please explain to me why this image is not free ? SyG (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

With envy and admiration
Two more questions - have you a stance on adminship, as in being one? And did you know you're in the top 3000 of WP:WBE? #2448, wear it with pride. WLU (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya, I kinda feel the same way about adminship, with a hefty dash of fear that I'd abuse the power.
 * Being in the top 3K is not a reason to cut back. It's a reason to make a sustained push for the top 500.  I'm #590 and curse having a full-time job that has prevented my ascent to the very top.  Kudos, it's a shame you aren't interested in being an admin 'cause I'm sure you'd be a good one.  WLU (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Know anything about Williams syndrome? Seems like it'd be right up your alley, and it's badly sourced... WLU (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I really wish I could do this. *sigh*. Made me smile. Colin°Talk 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Polio featured topic project
Hi Eubulides, I've recently started a project on getting several articles up to FA/GA standard so that we can include them into a featured topic. So far the only nomination for the topic is Polio, and I've noticed that you recently edited Poliomyelitis and thought you might be interested. Anyway, if you are, feel free to sign up here :)

Kind regards,

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Poliomyelitis project
Hi, you're getting this message because you have expressed interest in developing poliomyelitis and related topics into a Wikipedia Featured Topic.

The project has gained enough support and so the project page has been set up here. Comments regarding the project should be left there, article comments themselves should still be left on the individual talk pages of the articles included in the project.

Thanks for your interest in the project! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ASD
Can you bring back the ASD page I find the redirect to the autism page misguiding as they are not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.212 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, I only got tangentially involved in the discussion about Autism spectrum disorder when the user above asked about it on Talk:Neurodevelopmental disorder. But I'll be willing to help out a bit once I sort out the nuances of it and the other Autism related articles. To me the articles seem to reflect the depth and broadness of the discussion I read about in the journals. I've a bit slow, having a full list of wikipedia edits of my own since I started to revise Neurodevelopmental disorder, and not being a very prolific editor, but will pitch in as I can get to it.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Epidemiology assistance
I posted this message on 's talk page, and nudged me in your direction, as she said epidemiology is your strength:

I've had a burr of a paragraph in an article stuck to my backside for a while. I'm not sure what to do about it. There's some information on epidemiology that I don't think I'm going to understand. The article is And the Band Played On, specifically this section. Apparently the author, Randy Shilts, misunderstood some epidemiological terminology, and there's an article by Andrew Ross in the American Journal of Epidemiology explaining Shilts' mistakes, but I think it might be over my head. Admittedly, I haven't read it, but I used to work in a medical library and I'm going to have to say most of the articles are pretty far over my head. At any rate, I need to rewrite that section with a better explanation, and I was hoping you could help. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

HCPro
A tag has been placed on HCPro, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of HCPro and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WVhybrid (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnson's TS
Eubulides, can you lend any analysis of the sources or the conclusions to the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I chopped more; is it better now? Samuel Johnson  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we got all of your changes now; I'm going to be traveling as of tomorrow, unsure of my internet access, so if you see anything that needs changing wrt TS, pls feel free. Thanks for the help! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

GA-review of Howard Staunton
Thanks for the patience and pedagogy you shown during the GA-review of Howard Staunton, your input and help were particularly appreciated! SyG (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic
I've added a new section suggesting a start for looking at the evidence section: "A starting point for a look at the effectiveness section and introduction" Cheers, Macgruder (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy at the moment, but I've added a couple of comments. Particularly this is relevant: Ernts: 'Our previous work has shown that the conclusions of reviews of SM for back pain appear to be influenced by authorship and methodological quality such that authorship by osteopaths or chiropractors and low methodological quality are associated with a positive conclusion.' Macgruder (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Help!
Hi,
 * I need to discuss some things with you, which I can't post here. Can you e-mail me on dr2rao@yahoo.com?
 * Thanks in advance.
 * Regards,
 * Dr.Rao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.155.231 (talk • contribs)


 * Note that this is possibly the banned user Dr. Ramanand Rao Jhingade, see checkuser (aka User:Dr.Jhingaadey, User:Homoeopath, User:Happening, User:Ramaanand, User:Selection). Yours, Verbal   chat  09:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Epidemiology of autism
Silly me: it didn't even occur to me that the IP could have been referring to the full spectrum. I should know better than to assume the average person is using precise terminology, when it comes to autism/ASD/PDD. Thanks for clarifying. Maralia (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A vaccine guy
Mentioned here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

MEDRS
Not your fault. I'm just not getting round to writing articles at the moment and some of those discussions aren't going anywhere. I had hoped that guideline-promotion would bring fresh eyes and an incentive to further polish the guideline. Instead it is stuck in a silly dispute and is probably a real turn off to anyone with a good suggestion. Perhaps it is best to wait till everyone has calmed down before proposing any radical changes. I'm sure the guideline could be a lot better, and I think you are probably the best person on wiki to spearhead that. Colin°Talk 18:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Colin has more experience in this area and is a topflight editor." Such flattery is unfounded. I spend too much time discussing guidelines and not enough writing articles. You are the one with some FA's under your belt, and my belief in WP is strengthened by having Autism in my watchlist. Many FA's ossify but your continued refinement and your handling of other editor-changes is a model to be copied. WP needs editors who are experts and deeply understand WP fundamentals. There's damn few of those. Colin°Talk 22:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only that, he actually (gasp) "writes for the enemy", which is why I've been a bit ... um ... vocal over at WP:AN. I'm afraid too many of our ArbCom members aren't in the article writing trenches (some of them never were, which is stunning) and have simply lost sight of why we're here or how most of us spend our time.  (I 'spose I can't include myself in "most of us" anymore, since FAC keeps me out of articles, but at least I'm still involved with articles.) There just aren't enough quality editors to go around, and when one of them is treated poorly, it reverberates.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apropos of this, I'm very impressed with your unfailing civility in the face of provocation. Please keep up the good work and don't get discouraged. MastCell Talk 16:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Acid throwing
Do you have any comments on Cailil's latest proposal on this article's talk page? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Autism
Hi. I'm not used to editing the main article for Autism and I don't know much about the science, but I think that overall I am being helpful, so please tell me if I'm not. I just installed WP:Wiked today and realized how much easier it makes it to edit articles like this one. Previously, having all those references interspersed with the main text made it difficult to do anything, but now, it's just as easy as if I was editing it from the article page itself. <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 21:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting study
http://ard.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/ard.2008.093757v1 -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 03:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sacks
Can you peek at the bottom of the FAC; Sacks again. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it. A lot.  But I unwatched.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDRS question for you
Hello! :-)



I know this is slow going, but better to go slow early on, and make sure we all keep our footing. Looks like discussion has become civil at least. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Philitas of Cos
Thanks for the clarification on Philitas of Cos. I'll try to revisit the article and FAC soon. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 01:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. I'm sorry that your page got so little attention for such a long time. Thank you for sticking in there and working to improve this encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done. What a polymath. Colin°Talk 06:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Clear and specific"
Could you detail exactly what you'd like to see in such a warning? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said.
Re this edit: An excellent answer to a "which of your children do you love best" type of question. I hope it will encourage all editors (including myself) to refer to reliable sources more often. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tourette syndrome
I just re-read my response to your proposal at Talk:Tourette syndrome, and noticed it probably came off sounding worse than I meant it to&mdash;I didn't mean to imply that your rephrasing of the article was intentionally inappropriate, but just that I think we should play it safe. Sorry if my comments came off as being a personal attack. &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 05:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have time to look in on Talk:Treatment of Tourette syndrome? No hurry.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Frustration
Regarding my attempts to collaborate with you at Chiropractic, I expressed my frustration in this manner and have now moved this comment to your talk page:

-- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I give up! You are pretty hard to collaborate with. You don't give an inch, no meeting half way, or even an attempt to compromise. "With friends like you....." Maybe ownership really is a problem here.


 * See my talk page. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 19:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fyslee, have you considered that you are the one that has a hard time getting along with others. It's time for you to see the light.  Q ua ck Gu ru   16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you pointing fingers? That's an interesting diff you use. You should learn to find diffs that actually support your point, rather than those that expose your own problems. 'nuff said. Let's all move on. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 19:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation of dermatology articles on Wikipedia, input wanted
Hey. has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion, as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation research
FYI: Spinal manipulation research resources. You are welcome to contribute with comments, suggestions, and additions at the talk page. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

DST
Wow big page.. sorry to add to it I've responded on Talk:Daylight saving time Hope we can make the page better. Beckje01 (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Poems
Think I might have an answer for you at WP:VPT. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  21:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Paracetamol linked to autism?
I'm new to wikipedia so I apologise for any faux pas I make straight away.

I noticed on the paracetamol page you added a paragraph in the adverse effects section stating that paracetamol giving post MMR vaccination is apparently linked to autism. After examining the source, a parent survey with only 83 parents and another 80 controls, the link seems pretty weak. I couldn't find any other sources to back up a link apart from another journal article hypothesizing a link with anti-pyretics and autism. Does this information really belong on the page with such a small amount of evidence?Capcapone (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to say thank you for your work on the vaccination articles. You have been quite helpful, expanding on suggestions, finding references. Thanks! Zodon (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Magic
How were you able to locate the free full-text review of PMID 18674396 ? I did a PubMed search on "Major depressive disorder" with limits on free full text for reviews, and turned up nothing of use. What's the trick? Particularly since PubMed doesn't indicate free full text is available in that case. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder (2)
Hey Eubulides, It's hard to understand the person. (S)he was diagonised with Asperger's syndrome, and is talking about how difficult it is to read the Asperger's syndrome article? Well with vocabulary on Wiki that is isn't every day used should be linked like it is. That's the whole point of it. Anyway, do you think I could change it with the reliable references. Thanx! A T  C   (talk)  01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, I moved the section to the top of the article's discussion page is that better. A T  C   (talk)  22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look
What do you think? There seemed to be more than enough to meet WP:NB, so I thought I'd take a shot at drafting an article. I'm curious to get your feedback. MastCell Talk 23:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be looking for this ref
Cheers -02:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Birth years
It depends - if you don't have any idea, mark it as "year of birth missing". Given that the dates you found were in a certain range, though, I'd put her in the category of "1920s births". --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 17:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru
I don't want to start world war III, so could you somehow sort out QuackGuru's latest disruption of the Talk:Chiropractic/Mediation page? He's added a second version of the proposed text, which has thrown a spanner in the "limited edit war" process which I think has been working quite well until now. --Surturz (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're being talked about...
... at WP:EAR. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Please be mindful of the WP:3RR with respect to Autism Speaks. You might be in violation there. Toddst1 (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See What is your opinion?--Trèspacifique (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mercury, lead, and zinc in baby teeth of children with autism versus controls.
-thanks for having responded me. And this study? PubMed link [] Mercury, lead, and zinc in baby teeth of children with autism versus controls. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 (scientific journal with a system of peer-review),  Adams JB, Romdalvik J, Ramanujam VM, Legator MS. Chemical and Materials Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA. In my opinion, it is interesting and quite recent, I have reminded that study in Talk:Causes of autism. What is your opinion?--Trèspacifique (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

see --Trèspacifique (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tic spam
Per this upcoming event: I'm anticipating some tic-related vandalism at Brad Cohen, Tourette syndrome and coprolalia when the show airs. (Brad is an extraordinary fellow in case you want to watch the program; no advance news on whether the story will stay accurate, but they usually don't. Most TS shows opt for sensationalism, but Brad's tics are so sensational anyway, it would be hard to exaggerate them.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitions...
Hi Eubulides. I just noticed your remark below, found here:


 * Sorry, I don't follow the above remarks: the source you cite seems to say exactly the opposite of what you're saying. In NCCAM's FAQ, the question "Are complementary medicine and alternative medicine different from each other?" is answered as follows:
 * "Yes, they are different.
 * Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine. An example of a complementary therapy is using aromatherapy to help lessen a patient's discomfort following surgery.
 * Alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. An example of an alternative therapy is using a special diet to treat cancer instead of undergoing surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy that has been recommended by a conventional doctor.
 * Eubulides (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Eubulides (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed to an extraordinarily great degree during several long series of discussions related to how to deal with several articles that dealt with the same topics, namely Alternative medicine, Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and Complementary medicine. Because they are all dealing with EXACTLY the same methods, it was decided to combine their content under the oldest and best known term (alternative medicine). This was also done because of lots of duplication, since the content was so similar and overlapping. It constantly resulted in edit wars being carried on in three different places, with contradictory and confusing results regarding the same matters. That happened because the evidence for the same things was being spread around and decisions were being made based on seeing different sets of evidence, instead of seeing all of the evidence being presented in the same place. The current solution has ended that problem and we don't have three world wars raging at the same time. In fact, there has been relatively little edit warring since then. Considering that there is always edit warring there, that tells you how much more there used to be!

The NCCAM quote is confusing, because it doesn't refer to the methods themselves, but to a mindset. CAM and alternative medicine use EXACTLY the same alternative medicine methods. So what is the difference being referred to? It is the setting. We can't justify having different articles describing the same methods, when the only difference is the setting. The difference in setting can be described in a few short paragraphs. Another interesting matter (not discussed) is the fact that in Britain, alternative therapists have long since succeeded in whitewashing what they are doing by getting the more "mainstream"-sounding "complementary" or CAM terminology adopted generally, to a much greater degree than in the USA. What they are doing in England and here (including homeopathy and the worst forms of quackery) always sounds less fringe if they use those terms, rather than calling it "alternative". Hence the push by our now banned User:John Gohde/User:Mr-Natural-Health to get Wikipedia to get confused over the issue and to adopt CAM, rather than "alternative". He was simply attempting to sneak in an image change (make fringe appear to be mainstream) by changing our terminology here. But since we follow the sources, and by far the greatest number of sources use the term "alternative medicine", we choose to use it, and of course the other terms when the sources use them.

No matter how we look at it, it is all about EXACTLY the same methods, including the most fringe and weird. If an MD does it, no matter how weird, it suddenly becomes "complementary". Promoters claim that only alternative methods that have been proven can be called "complementary", but reality shows that evidence has little to do with it. Their self-created definitions can't be trusted, since they are attempting to get access to government funding by changing its and the public's perception of their quackeries. It's still fringe, and until proven to be effective, is always "alternative". If and when it becomes proven properly, it will no longer matter where it came from, it will be accepted and become mainstream medicine, and it will then be improper to continue to call it "alternative", or CAM, or whatever. There is medicine that works, and medicine that doesn't work. That's the real difference. The article's Definitions section was difficult to write, but I think we (a consensus of editors with differing POV) managed to capture the various significant nuances of published definitions, and they are many. There is not a unified consensus on this, and the sources show it, depending on which POV they are written from. Our job was to show that variety of views. Fortunately we have quotes from some in the top of the medical world speaking there. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic costs
An interesting set of facts from a very RS:


 * "Another unanticipated cost overrun occurred when Blue Cross of Arizona was obliged legislatively in 1983 to cover chiropractic care. It was assumed that the competition would decrease health care costs. However, the average chiropractic case cost was $576, 8% higher than that for surgeons and 352% higher than for general practice medical doctors.23 The cost effectiveness of chiropractic services remains a contentious and uncertain issue.25"

-- Fyslee (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

New autism article
Actors for Autism has just been recently created and nominated for speedy twice, but survived both times. Hopefully we can get some more info into it, but that might be difficult since the website of the organization itself doesn't show much. If the article doesnt grow, is there a place this could be merged to? List_of_autism-related_topics didnt seem like a good idea since for anything to be on there, it has to be an article of its own. Also, I would have posted this to the autism noticeboard, but it seems kind of moribund there. Im coming to you because you seem to be the #1 editor of all the autism articles, so even if you can't help with adding info to the article you might know what to do. <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 03:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

BJ's "reckless driving" incident ;-)
While I definitely agree with your reversion of the unsourced and poorly formatted IP edits, there is some truth to the matter. The cause of DD Palmer's death has always been controversial, and has been commented on by many. BJ Palmer was indeed tried in court for, in a fit of rage during a parade, supposedly deliberately driving into his father with his car. The old man was stealing some of his undeserved glory. The case was thrown out, and the event has later been termed a myth by some chiropractors who don't know their history. He later died, possibly from complications caused by the injuries, although the official cause of death was listed as typhoid fever. Needless to say, in a town controlled by chiropractic (IOW by BJ Palmer), a fair trial would be impossible, so the real truth of the matter will likely never be known at this late date. The fate of DD Palmer is a very sad one. From being a visionary quack, to being cheated out of his profession by a delinquent and ignorant "wharf rat" of a son trained in trickery, marketing, and deception from his time in the circus, and then being exiled from the grounds of his own school, he returned to being a grocer, started a school, wrote some books, and died in relative obscurity. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Vaccine changes
I see you made changes already; however, the links that you changed need to be piped to the "new" page names, not the "redirect" pages. Also, for reducing the size of the references, I will update the size per directions at Footnotes, so that the size is reduced, as the width looks the same in the browser window, even with the column width reduction.--Funandtrvl (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Deep fat fryers
I swear, that's the most edited line in the entire article. Just wanted to say Happy Holidays, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractors v. Vaccination
FYI:

-- Fyslee (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Chiropractors v. Vaccination, TIME magazine, Leon Jaroff, Tuesday, Jun. 07, 2005
 * You are invited to comment and contribute.