User talk:Hyperion35

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!; Regards,--scuro (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

These pages may interest you

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)

Regards,--scuro (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

crushing the nut with a hammer
Greetings Hyperion, thought I'd just offer some advice. You have an incredible breadth of knowledge and do an excellent job of rooting out non encyclopedic citations and material. I do hope you continue your work with wikipedia. My advice would be simply to let the facts speak for themselves, believe me..the facts you present are throughly convincing. While it is true that some of the information presented is throughly biased or false, a fellow contributor took the time to post this material. Personally commenting on such material is not a direct violation of any wiki policy as far as I know. Yet, the ultimate goal of wikipedia is for those who hold different viewpoints to come to consensus on all of the information on an article. Some contributors hold strong subjective viewpoints and these viewpoints could be part of their belief system. They may view such comments as a personal attack and respond accordingly. There have been plenty of flair ups on ADHD article, and personally, I'd like to see those with a different viewpoint attempt to seek true consensus for the first time. Regards,--scuro (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

impressed
Hi Hyperion. I have to say I'm really impressed with the quality of your work on the ADHD pages. And you are doing an excellent job at staying cool and focussed, and not getting distracted by side arguments. --Vannin (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hemispherectomy
Good evening. I seek your help on an issue that seems to be outside your particular speciality here in WP but inside your field of interest. The section Hemispherectomy contradicts itself: cognitive impairment is first described as non-significant, but immediately afterward the most intelligent are said to suffer the greatest decline and retardation is brought up. I lack the knowledge to interpret my search results. Could you take a look?

Note that I don't want you to feel obligated. This is just one of the many tasks one could pick, and I have more confidence in waylaying strangers than in bothering wikiprojects. --Kiz o r  22:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Request
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning ADHD has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/ADHD and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Question?
I am impressed with your understanding of Wikipedia with so few edits under your belt. May I inquire how you managed this? Cheers Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I grew up with computers, and have used them extensively since early grade school. I was making webpages in middle school, doing computer repairs to pay beer money in college, and when I later became too sick to work, I fell back on those computer skills to do some freelance programming to make ends meet.  Wikipedia's interface may be clunky, but it's not exactly all that difficult to figure out how to use.  I mean, most tags are basically just HTML code.  That's just markup language, not even real code.  There's no states, no events, no functions, no objects, and of no conditionals, it's not all that difficult...although I will admit that I screwed up some links to references early on because I wasn't quite sure how to do it.  Besides, I don't make that many edits to articles, but most of my edits have been to talk pages.


 * Of course, if you're asking about my understanding of Wikipedia policies...honestly it's all just spelled out in their own pages. Compared to the RVUs, CPT coding, and Physicians Fee Schedules, it's really not that complicated.  Try as they might, there is no way that Wikipedia could ever create a system nearly as byzantine and opaque as Medicare billing, trust me.  ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference
Hello, your recent addition of a 2005 review is a broken link. What is the title of the reference so that I can properly format it and add a working URL?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I swear it just worked a second ago, now I can't seem to get it to open either, and I'm using the link from Novella's blog that I'd just used a moment before. Give it a minute, it might just be a minor blip. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The source should work now. Bush G, Valera E, Seidman L (2005) "Functional Neuroimaging of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Review and Suggested Future Directions" Biological Psychiatry Volume 57, Issue 11, 1 June 2005, Pages 1273-1284.  DOI is doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.034 ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ADD article
While your edit was a good one, I'd suggest you refrain from the snide remarks in the edit summary. They could be construed by some as violating WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. Just an FYI to keep out of heat around here, especially on that article, which has been quite contentious in the past. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The "ADHD Controversies" article? Yeah, I know the summary of the last edit was a bit snarky, but in all honesty that was one of those situations where sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.  The OMIM info wasn't included in the genetics section because it contradicted the not-so-subtle POV of that article...a POV that at times appears to be the entire raison-d'etre for that article in the first place.  When Wikipedia gets a "Diabetes Controversies" page blaming Big Sugar, accusing pharmaceutical companies of pushing insulin on kids, and claiming that parents are just giving their kids too much candy, we'll see what kind of interesting edit summaries you'd see from diabetics.


 * Besides, as someone with ADHD, I reserve the right to be a smartass at any and all times...but I do get your point, it's better to just let the edits speak for themselves, no matter how idiotic the page might be. But who knows, maybe it'll encourage people to double-check some of the sources on that page and clean it up a bit.  Not that I have any misplaced optimism that it'd last more than a few weeks before it gets back to its current state.  As it is, a person reading through that article would never know that every medical organization in the entire world recognizes the condition and diagnosis as valid, and that the only controversies that are actually recognized by any legitimate medical body involve the lack of long-term studies on medication.  Then again, attempting to use Wikipedia as a medical reference in general is probably tantamount to putting one's name in the running for a Darwin Award.  Most of the medical articles are pretty good, but there are a lot of altie-woo nutjobs who think that Wikipedia is their platform to fight against the oppression of mainstream medicine and big pharma, or whoever else the people in tinfoil hats tell them is evil. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, there's a tag exactly for that, along with an IANAL tags to keep (Well, try to) people from using WP as a medical or legal text. And that article is, worthy of a merge in my opinion.  Maybe even a deletion.  In addition to the medication one, the only other controversy I know of is the over-diagnosis.  But, yeah, WP gets used to push platforms entirely too much.  Which is why I try to stay "uninvolved" in most of the contentious articles here.  BTW, I lol'd at the "I reserve the right to be a smartass" .  Take care :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am now having to strengthen the article, as I feel it is under original research attack. I have now added a citation to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence which says that "many people" find the diagnosis controversial. It is much better if we worked out compromises rather than denounce everything as fringe which is clearly not true and only can be argued from an original research point of view.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear, the repeated efforts by yourself and DocJames to attempt to insert "controversy" into every facet of ADHD is becoming rather disturbing. By all means, strengthen the article with better citations and sourcing, lord knows that it could use a good bit of work.  However, rather than using the NICE guidelines to attempt to claim that it is "controversial," perhaps you could cite sources that actually discuss what is controversial about it.  The NICE guidelines certainly do not give the impression that the diagnosis or treatment are controversial.  In fact, the entire act of publishing diagnostic and treatment guidelines rather contradicts such a claim prima facie.  The problem that you are no doubt finding is that many of the sources that do attempt to contradict the conclusions of the main medical organizations tend to be, by and large, fringe.  A viewpoint that might have been "minority" a decade or two ago due to the primitive nature of much of the evidence of the time has been largely reduced to fringe status by the ever growing stack of well-documented and well-researched studies showing fairly substantial support for the validity of the condition, diagnosis, diagnostic criteria, and treatment.


 * If a particular viewpoint fails to gain traction with leading researchers in the field, fails to find support in the major reviews of current research, fails to find support with the major medical organizations and is directly contradicted by the consensus statements, CPGs, and Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines issued by those various established medical organizations, then "fringe" is probably the most polite and kindest term to use. See my comment above regarding "altie-woo nutjobs" if you would like a rather unvarnished and less WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL view.  Also, let me once again reiterate that your personal views in this regard are fairly irrelevant.  The purpose of an encyclopedic article is to faithfully reflect the verifiable established data.  Consider it a blessing that the "Controversy" article is even allowed to exist, because in its absence, the vast majority of the crap in that article would completely fail the requirements for verifiability, due weight, and basic common sense required to be included in the main ADHD article.


 * A good rule of thumb to determine "fringeness" of a given statement is to consider how many experts or groups of experts would have to be wrong for such a statement to be credible. For example, for homeopathy to be credible, every expert on the subject of chemistry, chemical solubility, pharmacology, etc would have to be a blathering idiot.  Similarly with the "ADHD Controversies" article, for many of those "controversies" to have any shred of credibility, the vast majority of experts in the fields of psychiatry, neurology, neuropsychiatry, cognitive neuroscience, clinical pharmacology, behavioral psychology, and neuroimaging would have to be wrong, as would those who have published various reviews of the published evidence in those subjects.


 * It is all well and good to document the fact that there are altie-woo nutjobs out there who hold opposing views. But let's not get carried away and forget the importance of calling a spade a spade and accepting that we are talking about viewpoints that have been consistently rejected by the experts in the field and by the major medical organizations.  "Fringe" is an absolutely appropriate term to use in such a discussion, and quite frankly I cannot wait to have others from WikiProject Medicine involved, because I suspect that they will be rather appalled at some of the crap that has been allowed to appear in these articles. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but your reply produced no references so is not of value to improving the article. Homeopathy is fringe from a scientific viewpoint and even in the general public few would believe it has any medical value and is irrelevant to this discussion. I only use secondary sources, per WP:MEDRS.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I responded on your talk page with several references...however, I am afraid that references stating categorically that there are no controversies are probably not going to exist. As I mentioned on your talk page, that would be proving a negative, which is rather difficult.  Further, you might note that my suggestion for improving the article would be to delete it, but since that it not going to happen, my other suggestion would be to try to actually be accurate in citing sources, remove a lot of altie-woo crap, and try to make sure that the article reflects the fact that ADHD is considered valid and relatively non-controversial by the medical community. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If I can direct you two to the article, I've added two references covering the fringe theories involved in the causation of ADHD. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

File:ADHD KId3.jpeg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ADHD KId3.jpeg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the User WPMed template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter
 Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery



This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
 * WHO's list of Essential Medicines
 * Neglected tropical diseases
 * Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

I've () taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
 * IEG grant

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
 * Wikimania 2014

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
 * Integration progress


 * Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
 * Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
 * Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
 * Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
 * Integration guides

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short


 * To come
 * Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
 * Proofreading drives


 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Commenting without knowing the full story
Hello, hope you are doing well. I request you to not comment or accuse against any editors in any AFD like you did here and here. You can see that even an another editor, whose opinion and mine are different at several AFD's itself has confirmed that I did that in good faith. I revommend you not to involve in anything where you dont know the full story. Regards Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * u|Kashmorwiki, with all due respect, all that I did was point to your own words regarding your reasons for starting those AfDs. Your subsequent comments in those AfDs appeared to confirm that you had started them for the purposes of proving a point, in violation of POINT.  As I suggested in those article talk pages, I would strongly advise that you retract and repost those AfDs, after first reviewing WP:DEL for further guidance on the purposes of the AfD process, and reviewing what issues specifically are relevant to an AfD.  Whether the original author was a sockpuppet is irrelevant.  The number of your AfD nominations that are deleted is irrelevant.  Even if your original AfD nominations were necessary to "prove" that another editor was a sockpuppet, this is all still irrelevant.  You need to understand this.  AfD nominations are not your own private grand jury to use for your own little investigations, Wikipedia has separate boards for those things.  That is a horrible and unacceptable abuse of process. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/J. B. Eckl (2nd nomination)
Hi, can you please sign your comment at the above AfD as it isn't showing up, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Request
I would request that you stop referring to John Pack Lambert as son. I'm not sure what your intention was but it reads to me as you talking down to them in the ANI discussion and JPL has indicated it bothers them as well. In the end we are all colleagues here and one of the points of that thread is the need to treat each other as such. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will not do it again. To my knowledge, I only used the phrase once, in response to this incredibly offensive statement from Mr. Lambert.  My use of the term "son" was a regional (Southern) expression, essentially conveying that I was trying to exercise patience and AGF and provide helpful advice in the face of insulting and unacceptable behavior.  As I said, I will not use the term again, it was not my intention to insult or condescend, but I take responsibility for my poor choice of words.  I had hoped that the comment that followed that word would have helped to de-escalate the situation, where I explained that I had a relative who had a similar diagnosis as he did, and that his political views had no bearing on my suggestions, and then tried to refocus on the core issues relevant to that discussion.  To the extent that my use of the word "son" insulted Mr. Lambert and distracted from what I was trying to say, the fault is mine.  I should have considered how it would appear to him and to others, and I will take care to avoid similar problems in the future. Hyperion35 (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Left-handedness and Hebrew
On looking at your User page I see that you are left-handed and that you have some knowledge of Hebrew. So please excuse this question that may seem to be without interest. Knowing that left-handed people sometimes have difficulty writing English (from left to right), I have wondered if being left-handed is an advantage for writing Hebrew or Arabic. A few years ago I was visiting someone in Rehovot when one of his colleagues came in and needed to write something. I noticed that he was left-handed, and I asked him the question that I'm asking you. He said he wasn't sure, but thought maybe being left-handed was an advantage for Hebrew. Athel cb (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

So many cricketers, why?
So many cricketers, why?.

Because.

The problem (as I see it) is that WP:N specifies that a WP:SNG is an alternative to WP:GNG (not all WP:AFD nominators, voters or closers know that); and many SNGs are rubbish. WP:WPCB has tried and failed to come up with an SNG; WP:NSOLDIER was recently deprecated; and WP:CRIN is widely disliked by cricket fans (including me). SNGs like WP:NFOOTY, WP:NBASEBALL, and so on, which pretty much say that anyone who's ever set foot on a sportsfield and been paid for it is notable - well, I'll stop there. Cricket is only under the spotlight now because many permastub bios in other sports have been there for 15+ years. Sigh. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)