User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2011/July

Sorry...
I am a U-M grad, but no longer have access to the library. Funnyhat (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Police Gazette
LeadSongDog, it looks like two different pages were created for the National Police Gazette when you did your edit on 18:25, 14 July 2010. Users who search on the term Police Gazette are directed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Gazette, and users who search on National Police Gazette are directed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Police_Gazette. All users should be directed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Police_Gazette. This is especially important since there is a vandal editor trying to make changes. This editor has come in under the name Newspaperpublisher, but also without signing in and having IP addresses coming from the Daytona Beach area of Florida. I've reversed his latest edit in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Police_Gazette. But it is still there in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Gazette. SHBpedia (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

FAOL
I'm removing those banners because the FAOL project is dead, and I'm trying to convert the useful templates to ones like Expand Spanish where possible to consolidate translation requests into one system. The FAOL banners have been applied indiscriminately to articles with FA corresponding articles, without consideration of whether translation would be worthwhile. Most of the FAOL banners where both are FA are there because the en.wiki article has been translated to the foreign article. Essentially, there is a basically 0 chance that expansion from the foreign-language article would be worthwhile. If someone is looking to do translation, there are about a million higher-priority articles than these. And if the thinking is that just by virtue of a foreign-language article being FA, rather than a critical assessment of whehter it actually contains anything that en.wiki does not, editors should just be looking for the link fa icons that are applied by bots. (Because those are at least consistently applied.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Good thinking...
I compliment you for opening another avenue of discussion to hopefully bring a conclusion to the abortion debate, even while I remain extremely doubtful that agreement will ever be reached. When push comes to shove, as it certainly has in this instance, the "Wikipedia Supreme Court" needs to step in and make a decision. However, as I am learning from talking to JJL and NW, there is no such Wikipedia animal.

While I am aware that my approach was not exactly your intent, I do feel that it may be worth an exploration. If it is not backed by other editors, I hope that we can go back to your original idea. Gandydancer (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

marking vs deleting primary sources
I'm not going to let you get away with deleting all those primary sources. Wikipedia allows them, you cannot just delete them at will...

Jatlas2 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The talkpage consensus was to do it, in accordance with wp:MEDRS. Leaving that much text based on primary sources is blatant (and in this case gross) wp:SYNTH. The community tried to help you with secondary sourcing (me more than most), but you have not been receptive. I think you'll find that collective patience for this nonsense has run out. Of course, you are always welcome to provide secondary sources. But leaving the primary sources in place masks that the statements are not properly supported. This way we can see what's left. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review concerning lovastatin. Well, go ahead edit as you will. I will work with you as best as I can. I am highly suspicious of "doc James" and his comments though.Jatlas2 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Nice find on the other review ! Jatlas (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You needn't be. He's got a track record as an excellent contributor to the project. If you work constructively within the rules, you'll have no problems with him. Any doubts, take a look at his contribs. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to mark primary sources that need to be replaced with secondary sources, you can use . WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent option, thank you.LeadSongDog come howl!  01:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Censorship
I'm somewhat nonplussed to see arbitrator R actively engaged in what appears to be censorship of an established user's comments on their talkpage, particularly as the comments affected were both critical of Arbcom and likely to be among the editor's last words for some time. I'm even more nonplussed to see the censorship blended in a single edit with kind words to the editor. I would suggest the two are substantially at odds and should at minimum be refactored as two distinct edits. Further, I would ask that the arbitrator make explicit whether that censorship is done in an official capacity, or as just another editor. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't Arbitrator R doing that, it was longtime fellow editor R doing that. OrangeMarlin and I go way back, and I've cleaned up some of his previous ...exuberance... similarly. Unlike many others, I was not surprised to read of his reason for returning or the reason for his posting that statement. No, he never told me anything, but it was there in what he wrote and the way he said it; heck, it was there in the fact that he returned at all. Let's hope he returns to yell at me himself, we'll have a lovely flame-out on my talk page, and we'll both feel better. Risker (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Please make it explicit on that page that the edit was yours. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I signed the darn thing when I made the edit, LeadSongDog. Right there next to the word . If you'd written stuff like what I redacted on your talk page, I would have blocked you without hesitation, and I'm probably one of the least civility-enforcing administrators you will ever come across; indeed, there are plenty of people who are probably just as upset that I didn't redact even more. Let it lie, please. Risker (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but after the original deletion going unsigned, while attacks on him continue at talk:abortion I'm just a little on edge about it. I overlooked that you had signed twice in the single edit. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, LeadSongDog. I think we all might be just a bit out of sorts with this news. I didn't mean to be so snippy either, and I'm sorry I took it out on you. Risker (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On a sidebar, for future please note that wp:REDACT suggests (and to some extent implies) consent of the redacted editor to the redaction. I understand in this case that wasn't possible, but there ought to be a better way to phrase it. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Needs work"
Thanks for your comments about my draft lead sentence, and I'm glad you think it's much better now. However, your bolded "Needs work" remains, and will be counted as an "oppose" unless it's changed to something else. That's fine, I guess, if you want to oppose, but I'd be curious why; I agree "abortion" would of course be in bold.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Grazie.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

awraooooooo!
Jest howling. :-) TCO (reviews needed)  19:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dropping in. :-0 LeadSongDog come howl!  13:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ethics
I ran across your comment at the VAD dispute about it being unethical to prove that VAD causes SMT. Actually, I think it would only be extremely expensive. The 'story' there seems to be that VAD produces symptoms that cause the person to seek SMT. So you'd take every person seeking SMT (or SMT of the neck, or whatever seems likely), and screen them for VAD (e.g., with an MRI). If you screened enough (thousands), you should be able to identify the rate at which pre-existing VAD causes SMT (a rate that might be as low as zero). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The other way round. It would be unethical to run trials to prove SMT causes VAD. Since there is no demonstrated benefit to SMT, you can't justify the risk associated with doing it to see if VAD results. LeadSongDog come howl!  02:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If the person is going to receive the treatment regardless of whether you're studying it, then it's not unethical to see what happens. This is the same set of ethics that lets us study drug abuse:  if the person was going to smoke marijuana anyway, then hooking them up to a machine while they do it is not unethical.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so ethical constraints only apply to MDs, not to DCs? Interesting.LeadSongDog come howl!  03:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ethics are focused on the effect that you have, not on the choices the other person is making. If the person's receipt of SMT will not change as a result of your study, then the person's receipt of SMT is not relevant to your ethical evaluation.  You can ethically run a study on what happens to people who deliberately choose to engage in behavior you consider risky, pointless, silly, or immoral.  Otherwise, we would entirely be unable to study prostitution, drug abuse, alternative medicine, drunk driving, bungee jumping, space travel, or any number of other subjects.
 * BTW, if your standard is, as stated above, "no demonstrated benefit", then every single Phase I drug study conducted in the last half-century has been unethical. By definition, those studies are conducted on substances for which there is "no demonstrated benefit".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was speaking of the choices the practitioners are making, not those of patients. Clearly practioners do have an option as to whether they will administer SMT. It isn't like DCs are engaged in harm reduction, trying to wean patients off of their addiction to street SMT (at least I haven't seen any sources that would suggest that. ;-0 ) Perhaps "no demonstrated benefit" oversimplified: There's obviously a significant difference between the cases "tested extensively for and found that no measurable benefit was demonstrated" (fails on efficacy) and "not yet clinically tested". SMT, like many CAM interventions, would almost certainly have passed phase I, as the probability of finding adverse effects as rare as VAD in a small-N study is tiny. But of course the whole idea of drug comparisons is a bit silly: the dose-response element isn't applicable. LeadSongDog  come howl!  16:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Or maybe dose-response is relevant: I'm under the impression that at least some DCs believe that some SMT is good, and that more is better.  ;-)  I suspect that if you wake up with a bad crick in your neck, SMT could solve the problem (much faster than it would resolve on its own), which probably counts as "some benefit".  But I understand that some DCs would set up an months-long treatment program for a problem that is actually 100% resolved in five minutes.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there are always outliers and bad actors, but the real question should hinge on what we find published in V, RS. Whatever the practice of individual DCs, we should as what the usual practices are. These normally should align fairly closely to what is taught in the schools and discussed in the subject literature, just as for medicine. I'm convinced that rightly or wrongly, most DCs still believe that they are engaged in a skilled practice helpful to their patients. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Senile Dementia
Thanks LeadSongDog for your supportive comments and help and advice re my interest in Senile Dementia. I am keen to get it and Senility with their own entries in Wikipedia and understand that I must 'cut the mustard' before I'm able to edit such important words. However, I'm still new to Wikipedia and not sure that I'm even doing this right, so more help most welcome. Annatatton (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We try to make Wikipedia a welcoming and collegial environment for editors to work constructively together. However, it is a massive undertaking with editors from all over the world, with wildly varying backgrounds. Even experienced editors often have trouble determining what choice of action is correct. Principally we simply expect that editors will act in good faith and, when the inevitable disagreements arise, talk them through to find agreement. It works remarkably well, though not perfectly.


 * You may wish to see what our best work looks like by browsing Category:Featured articles. One always learns something by doing so.


 * It is quite possible that WP is the better for having one Dementia overview article, I have not really made up my mind on that question, but it is certainly a legitimate one to discuss. Certainly there is a modern undercurrent of distaste for the adjective "senile", which is part of the reason it doesn't appear in the ICD-10 list that I linked. It might be that it would have been better to discuss it at Talk:Dementia, rather than at Talk:Alzheimer's disease, but now that it has been started there, it is better in my opinion to keep the discussion in one place unless someone objects to it being there. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)