User talk:Marciaphd

February 2021
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. See WP:REFSPAM in particular, and also also WP:MEDRS, a fundamental standard for human medical content. DMacks (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Who are you? I posted a link to a peer-reviewed journal article on a topic in which I happen to be an expert. I am also a board-certified toxicologist.  What are your credentials on this topic?  Who made you the boss of cyberspace.   I may report you to wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciaphd (talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The ref appears to be a single case study. medical sources guideline, which has consensus on Wikipedia, typically requires a substantially higher level of sourcing than that by default--review articles from secondary/independent authors. How would a single-patient occurance ever be considered a medically appropriate basis for making blanket recommendations? Even whole studies can suffer from non-reproducibility; just being in a peer-reviewed publication is not sufficient. Most of the article's content already seems well-sourced, so it doesn't benefit from yet another ref. The ideas of proper PPE selection and the risk of confined spaces are good, but again, it would be appropriate to cite it to one that meets reliable-source standards.
 * You are welcome to follow up at WT:MEDRS, where a range of medical professionals and long-time wikipedia editors will be happy to help with it. DMacks (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

OK your current appeal to my higher sensibilities is reasonable and logical enough but your initial argument and allegations about promotional materials, beliefs soapbox etc are unfounded argumentum ad hominem and I therefore insist that you retract these or I seriously will report you to wiki for your abusive attacks.
 * The pattern of your edits was to insert refs to works by the same authors into multiple places where the ref did not seem to be an improvement. After I removed it the first time (added by a few IP accounts), with an explicit comment regarding single-case and reliable-sourcing ("A single case-study primary-ref does not meet WP:RS for general medical statements"), you merely re-inserted it without addressing those concerns. See article history. So I chose one of the canned user messages that was moderately neutral about intent, but is clear about appearance/effect. On WP, nobody really knows who anyone is unless they've met in person--that's a whole separate issue that's probably intractable.
 * Now that we have some conversation going, it's clear that you do have good intent. Possibly just now finding out some of the detailed sourcing requirements for certain topics that Wikipedia has established? I'm sorry you have had a rough introduction/trial-by-fire there. I think the Wikipedia Medicine project has worked on and off trying to simplify (or at least make more discoverable and readable) their standards. I work mainly on the chemistry side of things, so I just listen and pass along what they say. Unfortunately, there are many science authors who come to Wikipedia with the sole intent to promote their own work, and their behavior is exactly to insert self-refs repeatedly and not respond to notes about it. I'm glad you are not one of them! If you wish to escalate about my general actions, WP:ANI is the place. DMacks (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that I did not understand the policies for citations but my misfeasance was not malfeasance yet you have done something to ban my IP address. I have read the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). First my citation to the case report was not done to "with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Two, I did not cite the case report when writing about treatment efficacy.  Third, the article is not from a predatory journal. I cited three indisputable facts from the paper in three factal type locations: 1) the patients a tremor which is claissic symptoms of CO induced parkinsonism; 2) the patient suffered CO poisoning because the respiratory he used was inadequate for the expoosure levels he encountered; 3) he worked in a confined space.  There is nothing about these citations that meets the threshold of your allegations nor do these violate the subjective rules set forth. This value of this citation in ghe context cited is amatter of your opinion versus mine.  The citations should be restored and these are not violations.