User talk:PainProf

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!


Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED). We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:


 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
 * The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Graham 87 02:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello, thanks for your edits to neuralgia. it's nice to have an expert here. However, please use edit summaries when making changes to articles, especially when removing text, so people can easily tell why you removed it. I know almost nothing about the subject of the article (I only have it on my watchlist to deal with vandalism) but it seemed like the text you removed was marginal at best ... but other Wikipedia editors might find a text removal with no edit summary suspicious and revert it as being unjustified. Graham 87 02:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ineptitude on my part, not OR
I clumsily used a paper I turned up with Google to support the idea that placebo effects are relevant to Spicher's methods. It was not my intention to suggest that chronic pain is malingering, something I didn't realize that paper proposed, and also something I myself don't believe. (But I'm a materials engineer who mostly edits BLPs, so I am no medical expert.) Anyway, thanks for making a change based on your better understanding of the topic. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Happy to help, your point is of course completely correct, placebo contributes to every treatment, in pain its particularly powerful and we have the rare knowledge of its biological origin in opioids. The older literature on pain does tend to be a bit mean to the patients, we don't exactly have the best history. Its always challenging to find counterpoints to fringe theories because in general scientists don't give them the time of day. PainProf (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Variable volume distribution
Variable_volume_pharmacokinetic_models needs significant improvement. We need independent sources for this model please! I strongly advise that you rewrite the article in plain English. I will propose the article for deletion if no independent sources can be located as this is not a place for fringe /novel models. PainProf (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Two of the references for Variable_volume_pharmacokinetic_models are to works that were not done by the author. I have openly been asking for help writing this, which suggesting that it should be deleted is not a first step. If you have something to add, do so. This is not a "fringe model." Even the first article on the topic (Niazi, 1976) was inclusive of the sums of exponential term (SET) models used by most pharmacokineticists. Variable volume modelling is more general and more inclusive than compartmental modelling. In that sense, if anything is a "fringe" it would be SETs. Yes, this article needs more citations, so contribute something and put them in. Contribute, or cease complaining. CarlWesolowski (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Graded motor imagery (GMI) for chronic pain?
I am working to improve mirror therapy (a recent page move from the previous article title "mirror box") and came across some suggestions that its effect is tied to yet another non-pharmaceutical treatment for pain called graded motor imagery. Wikipedia does not have an article about GMI and I wonder what your thoughts are about this... should we? I can certainly see some review articles based on randomized controlled trials, so MEDRS exist at least. It also seemed to me that some of the varied treatments used by the Swiss group might in fact be connecting to the same underlying psychological restructuring as GMI. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a very interesting topic, I normally avoid the brain as its too complicated. Mirror therapy is quite a common approach for treating phantom limb pain, the sensation of pain where the tissue is gone. Mirror therapy is one element of GMI which also includes discrimination and motor imagery. Mirror therapy is quite a mainstream treatment for phantom limb sensation (as mainstream as anything can be for a relatively rare condition). It was originally based on the concept of somatotopic re-organisation of the brain basically meaning in the brain, neurons from areas that retain sensation expand into the areas that have lost sensation - somatotopic remapping. If you look at the homonculus imagine the neurons from the lips start to activate the regions that used to belong to the hands. The idea being that you can correct this by tricking the brain using input from visual and motor cortex and hopefully re-arrange the map.

.
 * GMI is certainly based on firm foundations, and would be deserving of an article. For example, it is self-critical https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/j.1532-2149.2011.00064.x / https://www.jpain.org/article/S1526-5900(12)00809-7/pdf. In CRPS, the data are less convincing, the clinical audit was much larger than any of the trials and it showed no substantial benefit. Funnily enough their own meta-analysis pointed out maybe only the mirror therapy aspect is effective.
 * I suspect in the case of the Swiss group it is/was largely an effective placebo, in pain conditions the placebo is particularly strong and mediated by the endogenous opioid system (i.e. reversible with opioid antagonists). It really reminds me of the studies of accupuncture. Accupuncture is more effective than a sugar pill but no more effective than sticking the needles wherever you want. The other factor really is that over time many neuropathic conditions appear to get better but actually just become more severe. For instance neuropathic pain caused by diabetes normally progresses as the neuropathy gets worse until there is a loss of sensation, this is a pretty severe problem as the loss of protective sensation which can lead to charcot's or ulcers and in a lot of cases amputation. Actually, this is one of the reasons I don't like to see alternative therapists treating diseases like this. PainProf (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since MT is used as part of GMI therapy, it makes sense to start by creating a section in the MT article about GMI. Then later, GMI can be expanded to its own article if somebody has the interest or energy. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Re:Cited in. Thank you
Good Information about references I didn't know about. Ward20 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not support the opression of colonialism
Disqualifying members of the Utah Territorial legislature from notability on the grounds territories are not states would be a way to make Wikipedia complicit in the opression of the otherizing, opression and colonializing elementes of how Utah was treated for decades as a colony by the US and its residents had their basic rights denied. We have always treated territories as at least top ranked sub-national entites and always accepted that all members of territorial legislatures are default notable. The results of your proposals to change this would increase presentism, and increase system exclusion of certain people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard closer
As the closing admin said "The WP:BURDEN of confirming a source's reliability, be they in English or not, is on the editor submitting (or reverting) it." I don't think the sources you posted in the AfD are valid. Since you can't confirm their reliability due to self admittedly not speaking Chinese. The only counter argument you were able to provide is "they must be reliable because we don't know if they are or not." Which isn't valid. So, I think you should retract the sources and find ones that you can actually confirm the reliability of. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fluency in a language is not necessary to successfully confirm the reliability of a source in that language. That is not a thing. El_C 14:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said it was. There's a huge difference between being fluent in a language and not being able to read a source. PainProf had said several times that he couldn't read the sources he was posting and that we should just take them as being notable anyway. Which shouldn't be acceptable IMO. It's not really about his language fluency or lack of it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're confused again. I didn't post arabic language sources. I could see them but they described various controversies. Therefore I didnt feel confident enough in the Google translation of a language which has a different structure to my own. Can you provide diffs for the aspersions PainProf (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You said they existed and referenced them to argue that they should be used to determine subjects notability. IMO it's splitting hairs that you didn't directly post them, because you posted about them as part of a keep argument. Which was in complement to saying Google translate wasn't good enough to determine anything from. That's more then enough to say that you couldn't determine their reliability and so they shouldn't been have used as part of a keep argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are translation tools, whose usage should be subject to local consensus. There may also be English-language sources that mention the non-English language source to the extent that its reliability is confirmed. Again, needing to "speak" (however you define it) the source's language is not a prerequisite. El_C 15:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can determine if the source is reliable if you don't speak the language at least a little bit though. It seems like AfDs about non-English topics can't be done fairly since there's the language barrier, but it doesn't seem tenable to not do them because of it. So, I'm really at a lose about a solution to this. I don't necessarily put that on PainProf or Cunard either. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can find an editor that can help with translation, that's of course preferred. Otherwise, what I state above still stands. El_C 15:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Righto, if this conversation is not really about me then this isn't the right place for it. You could discuss at WP:RSN. PainProf (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Re:COI/drug policy
A huge and sincere thank you for your words and proposal on the Drug Science, Policy and Law page. I am a co-founder of FAAAT indeed, not sure this qualifies for CoI but I've been tagged like that. I had another account before, of which I lost access, and I have had an experience of quite aggressive approaches to any change or addition of information, even when heavily referenced, to wikipedia, in several languages. Maybe that has ended up biasing me as well. I also hope the content related to this hot topic can improve in quality over time, ideally in a cool-headed fashion. Thank you again anyway! --Teluobir (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Help with a student edit
Hi there, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at an addition to the Palliative sedation article that a student just added: Continuous v. Intermittent Palliative Sedation. I'm a retired nurse with many years experience but I retired some years ago and am not up-to-date on modern practice. During my years of nursing I saw pain control go from even on a patient's death bed one needed to be stingy with it (which caused untold pain and harm) to a more humane approach of always staying ahead of the game and administering medication before the pain returned, in other words, continually. Anyway, to me the study seems to have been well-run and well-documented but it was done in Japan, and the authors do point out that Japanese people approach the end of life situation, etc., differently. Plus, it's old, and then of course it is a single study and not a review. Could you take a look at it? One more thing, sad to say, the article stressed that the staff needed to, and did, closely watch the patient which is seldom the case in American hospitals. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

New Way Forward Act
Can you point out where the copyright vio occurred? Valoem talk contrib 04:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article is very closely paraphrased/in some parts identical in both text and structure to the article pointed to, particularly I found the policies section close to identical, but the article will be investigated and checked, please rewrite those sections in your own words as they can just RevDel the previous infringing version. PainProf (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It was very closely paraphased to this source which I quoted, but I removed that source so I reworded that. I can't see any copyright vio if you do please point it out. Valoem talk contrib 04:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but actually the wording is still very close, and they need to delete previous revisions that are infringing (the crossed out lines on the history page), the background section specifically is particularly similar, I have tried to reword. I also cited that source because the entire structure of the article came from there. PainProf (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is I attributed that source with quotations, but that was a poor source. So I removed it, please fix it then, but it is not a copyright vio. Valoem talk <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor talk page
An editor removed my follow up comment their talk page. I had wanted you to read it, so I'll paste it here (with one copyedit).


 * User:PainProf, sounds like you're new. Welcome. You should see Johnpacklambert's AfDs and PRODs. His AfD votes are not taken seriously by the community at large because is a drive-by voter. He doesn't put in the time and he ALWAYS votes delete when he votes; you can check his stats. Refute his standard "a non-notable actress/musician/author/whatever" posts where appropriate and then just sit back and enjoy the show. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

We had other issues months ago when he started removing redlinks in articles. Don't hesitate to ask an administrator for help if you see anything particularly alarming, but generally he isn't too harmful. He doesn't know which way is up. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sensory phenomena
Hi, PainProf. A helpful IP (a long-time knowledgeable editor whose dynamic IP changes) has raised questions at Talk:Sensory phenomena based on this definition, which relates to pain. In trying to decide if premonitory urge should redirect to sensory phenomena, or be a separate article, are you able to add a section there about sensory phenomena as they relate to pain, and opine whether this should be one article or two? My initial feeling is that the article could have two sections: "In pain" and "In tic disorders", and that premonitory urge would redirect to that sub-section. But I know nothing of the use of the term in non-tic-related topics. Could you jump in at Talk:Sensory phenomena? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Poorya0014


Hello. Thank you very much. I think this user has a strong desire to promote suicide. Pay attention to his edits. It tends to promote suicide. He has consistently tried to add suicide methods in the articles and remove the prevention methods from the articles. I think he also used illegitimate spare.Likeboas (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=970516726#PainProf_reported_by_User:Poorya0014_(Result:_declined_for_now)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Iran&action=history

Concern regarding Draft:Chronic pain susceptibility
Hello, PainProf. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Chronic pain susceptibility, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Chronic pain susceptibility


Hello, PainProf. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Chronic pain susceptibility".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Prof, Can u help me with adding a page. because what ever i add in the wikipedia is going deleted. please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr cosmic king (talk • contribs) 13:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)