User talk:PeepleLikeYou

User called Candlelightship and Screening (medicine)
Hi PeepleLikeYou, Thanks for your spam report. Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with the topic enough to know whether Candlelightship's additions are useful to all the articles in question. Possible solutions here are to create a discussion about it on one of the article's Talk pages (and then the decision there can be applied to all relevant articles), or raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Hope this helps. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, it is nice to hear from someone helpful such as yourself. The user seems to have quietened down now, but I will keep that in mind if it should happen again. In fact there was no link in the user's additions so it may not have been "spam" in the strictest sense. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Yes, that the links were to a Wiki page rather than an external website might be the reason that no-one else responded to the report. I agree with you that it is still a legitimate concern, because it suggests someone is trying to use Wikipedia to promote an agenda (even if I don't know enough about the topic to be able to work out what said agenda actually is!). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This topic was raised at a scientific conference this week. The concept herein described is correct and critical to the understanding of the concepts of sensitivity and specificity. As such, it should be left up and it is not spam. It is in the nature of mathemathics that pre-print articles are published and disseminated. Peer-review process can take years (hence the reason for the pre-print servers). - a concerned scientist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.146.195 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a place to add your original research. PeepleLikeYou (talk)
 * This isn't my original research, but it is a concept we now frequently use in our lab. Other scientists may be able to use it as well. Unfortunate as it is, since as you well point out is isn't peer reviewed, Wikipedia is often the first place scientists look - hence trying to leave the post up. I don't understand your insistence in removing the post, and I would appreciate it be put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epigeek84 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for discussing it rather than edit warring. I didn't remove the bulk of the material from the sensitivity article, that was removed by an anonymous editor. I only removed one thing which looks like promotion. Your edits have all concerned the works of one author, Jacques Baylayla, and you seem to be adding content related to this one author where it doesn't seem to quite belong. If this theorem is really generally acknowledged to be the "Fundamental Theorem of Screening" one would expect to be able to find that somewhere outside a paper published in 2020. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That's started again has it? OK I will try to help. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Previous citation did not make mention of statement preceding citation.
With regards to the Sensitivity and Specificity page.

"A negative result in a test with high sensitivity is useful for ruling out disease".

Could you explain where in this document this line is clearly elaborated upon? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2540489/?page=1

"A positive result in a test with high specificity is useful for ruling in disease. The test rarely gives positive results in healthy patients. A positive result signifies a high probability of the presence of disease.[12]"

Where ref 12 is "SpPins and SnNouts". Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM). Retrieved 26 December 2013.

It makes sense to use the same citation for both, as ref 11 does not clearly mention that tests with high sensitivity is useful for ruling out disease. MuawizC (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of User:JoshuSasori&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)