User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2016/May

/* Prevention and treatment */ Addition of new treatment option backed by research findings
Hi

I share your concern for the quality of Wikipedia’s texts. I think, however, you are overly harsh. A lot of the quotes/references in the concerned entries are of much lower quality than mine and do not conform appreciably to Wikipedia’s requirements about sourcing (neither the first nor the second). I believe also that it is outrageous to call my contributions for “citation spamming”. The topics in which I have inserted the same text are closely related, one could say almost identical, and there is therefore nothing wrong with them sharing content or being cross-referenced (do you want the text in the entry on "mild cognitive impairment" to be radically different from that of "Alhzeimers disease" whern they are discussing variations of the same thing?). My additions are further well-intended and backed up by research findings. The research finding, although recent, are robust and go from preclinical and animal work all the way to RCTs. An impressive progression not shared by many of the other claims cited in the entries in question. They are also important from a public health perspective as there is currently no effective treatment for age related cognitive decline and AD. In order to show my good will I have added a secondary source, as you requested, to strengthen my case. With this addition I believe my contribution definitely deserves a place in the discussion about the treatment of age-related cognitive decline and dementias. I will therefore republish my revised contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didaktron (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 May 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Just because low quality sources exist on WP is not a justification to add more. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikis are hypertext, so we can simply link pages together. Repeating content in multiple places is both unnecessary and a maintenance burden that is easily avoided. As for using the specific study, as anonymous or pseudonymous editors we cannot lend any personal credence to a primary paper. Our assertions must stand on the sources cited. That is why we must cite quality secondary sources to confirm to readers just how (and whether) the research is valid and significant. This is the essence of wp:NOR and wp:SYN. Without a secondary source that says something, we'll leave it out rather than insert our own judgement on the value of the work.LeadSongDog come howl!  20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IT@School Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDUSAT. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Obesity-associated morbidity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lancet. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)