User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2013/December

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Muse cell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to DCT, SCID, Musashi, Nestin and Perivascular cell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Caldwell Esselstyn
Hello LeadSongDog: In your revision of 22:44, 4 December 2013, I noticed that you changed some upper case letters in my entry to lower case. Did I break some style rule? Hill&#39;s Angel (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This comes up fairly often, and there's some confusion over best practice. It's not a huge deal, but MOS:CAPS, wp:NCCAPS and wp:AT all pertain and we try to keep a consistent form at least within an article. As a simplified general rule, outside of direct quotations, just use caps for the first letter and for English-language proper nouns. Thanks for asking. LeadSongDog  come howl!  20:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Spam Warning? Vibroacoustic Therapy
Which one is the spam link... The links I posted are articles written by others, especially the inventor and father of vibroacoustic therapy Olav Skille - not to promote my site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrinus (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather obvious isn't it? The links to your own website violate both wp:LINKSPAM and wp:COI. Your other posts appear to violate wp:COI, in that you have an external interest in that website, which would be advanced if readers found wikipedia to support your products. If you wish to contribute constructively on the topic, restrict your posts to the talkpage and provide citations of medically reliable secondary sources that disinterested editors can verify. Note that this explicitly excludes reliance on primary sources, in which researchers describe their own work.LeadSongDog come howl!  18:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * original research done by Olav Skille... some of his latest work is only published via my site - that is why my links were there. my main website is cyrox.com - nothing to do with vibroacoustic therapy - I am a retired information security professional - a spot forex trader. I understand where you are going with this. those clinics I mentioned are medically reliable sources (for example rett syndrom - in sweden; universities in toronto etc) -- Cyrinus (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, it seems you still have no concept of what Wikipedia means by a reliable source. Please do your reading. That is why editors take the trouble to provide those blue links: so you can read the guidelines and policies which pertain. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Cyrinus: "my main website is cyrox.com - nothing to do with vibroacoustic therapy". Is this just a coincidence? Please see WP:COI, thanks.  LuckyLouie (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * that is cyrox.ca - not cyrox.com... Cyrinus (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So are you then infringing the trademarks asserted at ? You can't have your cake and eat it too.LeadSongDog come howl!  05:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

vibroacoustic therapy

 * Are any of the above independent secondary sources? Theses, original researcher's papers, etc. are not much use to Wikipedia until such secondary sources review them.LeadSongDog come howl!  18:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * yes - most of the above references are... reviewed and applied in daily life in hospitals, clinics etc... and secondary sources reviewed it and included it in their research, news letters etc - for example universities in Canada - these are publications and reputable independent institutes generated these projects; Neutral point of view, No original research (original research done by norwegian inventor Olav Skille), and Verifiability is there if you take time to read those papers. it is not depart significantly from mainstream science and have enough scientific support (including vibroacoustic stimulation article on your wiki). if it is questionable science - they will not use it in hospitals and clinics for more than 30 years --Cyrinus (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please identify one secondary source which you think meets wp:MEDRS. We're not going to go on a snark hunt for you. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * VAT is complementary or integrative medicine... I will find several for you... The guide lines were not clear... Can we take this as medical journal - secondary source? Abstract } --[[User:Cyrinus|Cyrinus] (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Many secondary sources here. Cyrinus (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Low Frequency Sound Stimualtion/Therapy Cyrinus (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LFSS Cyrinus (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

primary vs. secondary sources
Hi there, thanks for the feedback re: sources. I take your point that secondary sources are better than primary. However, in cases where secondary sources do not exist, or there is a seminal primary source that illustrates pioneering work or techniques, I think there is a lot of value in citing primary sources.

I think this fits with the guidance on the MEDRS page. Craskermasker (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Who makes the assessment that the work is "seminal" or "pioneering"? That is precisely why we need secondary sources to avoid inserting our own original research. LeadSongDog  come howl!  06:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There are two situations I'm describing here. First, where no secondary source exists - I think primary sources are acceptable here. However, if and when there is a secondary source, it is better. Second, where there is a widely accepted (in secondary/tertiary sources) seminal experiment/advance - e.g. the recording of action potentials by Hodgkin and Huxley in squid giant axons. In this case, a citation of the primary source in addition to secondary sources adds value (providing a reference for readers, more specific detail). Craskermasker (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your second example is fine, if there are such secondary sources bearing out the significance of the primary one. The first example, though is more problematic. A reader should not have to trust the judgement of a pseudonymous editor, so we have rules about that: wp:NOR wp:SYN, wp:UNDUE all come into play. LeadSongDog come howl!  23:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Climate change denial?
I'm sorry, but are you of the opinion that what i examplified was denial positions? In that case i suggest that you read up on climate change :) I'm usually described as a proud member of the non-existing climate change cabal who conspire to keep skeptical positions out of wikipedia articles ... in fact WUWT cheered that i voluntarily took a break from climate change articles in the ArbCom case --Kim D. Petersen 07:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all, but climate change has no bearing on the topic at hand and carries considerable baggage of editor discord. Its discussion should be kept to pages where it has bearing to avoid promulgating the clashes that go with that topic.LeadSongDog come howl!  07:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I gave it as examples of mainstream research that is being done right now, has a rather high uncertainty but is still currently described in our pages about the subject. I'm quite a bit confused as to why it should be necessary to "hide" what/where the current state of any research is at. Btw. considering how some are treating other editors on that article, it does remind me a bit of "home"... unfortunately.
 * If you pay attention i'm not arguing for us including anything that is dodgy or fringe - just arguing that we aren't winning anything by closing our eyes to the fact that there is ongoing research. I'm a vaper myself - so of course i have my biases, we all have - but as such member of the vaping community, i am also well aware that amongst the vaping community there is a growing "science scepticism" exactly because such tentative results aren't being mentioned anywhere. And my personal position is that unless we want to have another group of science sceptics of the "big bad pharma conspiracy" kind, then we have to be honest and open. --Kim D. Petersen 07:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I got that. But I cannot see how a discussion of any or every contentious subject in science is somehow on-topic there simply because one wants to reiterate that scientific progress thrives on disputes. Would you also drag in "intelligent design" and accupuncture illustrations? There's no end of distraction if you go down that path. Please, stick to edits relevant to the actual subject at hand.LeadSongDog come howl!  15:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the MMR debacle has been put forth quite a few times... which i would consider in the same category. Wouldn't you?
 * Iff there had been any indications that we were talking about WP:FRINGE material or steering away from where the mainstream research is going, then i could have followed this line of argumentation. But that isn't what anyone is arguing for, is it? In the (possible) case that i am mistaken, and that my arguments are skirting fringe views - then i'd very much like to know it. --Kim D. Petersen 22:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in the sense that it represents science vs a deliberate campaign to mislead public opinion, yes. But a legitimate scientific debate in a developing field of inquiry is not that. It's simply a "we don't know yet" case. That's part of the reason for avoiding wp:RECENTISM while still trying to remain fairly up to date. LeadSongDog come howl!  23:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly, but even a "we don't know yet" situation is usually covered in science articles on wikipedia, as long as secondary sources are talking about this research - and this is the case here. So Why would this topic be different? Recentism is a rather weak argument here, since it mostly addresses whether or not to create articles or is to cover non-notable events or current political issues.
 * We still aren't talking about "Stop the press - this just in!" kind of coverage - but instead a level-headed approach to describing what/how/where the current bulk of research is, and what it currently thinks is (might/or probably is) the case, and all of it reflecting what MEDRS secondary sources are saying.... Ah well - thanks for your input, but i'm probably venting frustration too much :) --Kim D. Petersen 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we still don't get to choose between primary sources. We have to leave it up to the published reviews. TTFN LeadSongDog  come howl!  05:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Where have i ever said that we should choose between primary sources?? I'm in no way in disagreement on sticking to letting published reviews do so (or even sticking to published reviews exclusively). --Kim D. Petersen 05:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)