User talk:Rslateriii



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 requires recent secondary sources to support information; its 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.
 * Wikipedia is a kingdom full of 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, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it 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! Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi
I left you a note here about your edits to the Leaky gut syndrome article. Also, please make sure you write an edit summary when you make an edit, to explain the rationale for changes you make. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions
Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It appears I am being sanctioned after attempting to post significant revisions to a grand total of two Complementary and Alternative Medicine articles, despite my formal training, board-certification, and continued clinical practice in the field. It appears that I must limit my activity to simple corrections of typos on non-medical topics and limit my medical expertise to peer-reviewed scientific journals, rather than wasting my time trying to improve this supposedly open-sourced -- but truly, irreparably biased -- web-based encyclopedia.
 * I have fully lost my faith in the neutrality of Wikipedia on any medically-related topics, and will warn all future patients, medical students, residents, fellows, and faculty to refrain from trusting any posts related to such topics. This is a true shame; I believe the internet should be a source of continued learning to the betterment of society -- of which Wikipedia is a central contributor, but has been co-opted by admins who lack legitimate qualifications on their topics of discussion. This has resulted in misleading health information to the public, and in my expert purview, I believe this will ultimately cause undue harm to an already diseased society.
 * To those who have sanctioned me, I hereby proclaim that the blood of these misled Wikipedia readers is on your hands.
 * Rslateriii (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above, is a notice that discretionary sanctions exist. It is like saying - "Hey, look out for that hole you are about to fall into!" Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Jytdog; as you noticed, I was quite perturbed in the above post. I incorrectly thought I was being individually sanctioned after only my second disputed WPMED post, but I do appreciate you clarifying this for me. I will keep in mind the discretionary sanctions in place on Complementary and Alternative Medicine for any future posts -- and try my best not to fall into that hole!
 * Rslateriii (talk) 2:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Userpage
You cannot abuse Wikipedia to promote yourself. Please remove the "super doctor" advertising from your userpage. See WP:USERPAGE as well as WP:PROMO. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That makes sense; I have removed the aforementioned link. Does my distinction as a National Merit Scholar also violate those policies?
 * Rslateriii (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your head is in completely the wrong place. No one cares what qualifications you say you have. (We do care if you try to promote yourself or your employer or your pet ideas etc).  What matters is if you deal with other people like a normal human being instead of writing shit about "blood on their hands" and if you try to learn what we do here and then actually do it. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * To clarify, my intention is to improve the health of all those I come in contact with. I dedicated over a decade of my life to obtaining the training and qualifications that are completely relevant to this -- which matters a great deal in the real world, where people need actual medical licenses and board certifications to provide medical care. But it seems that since there's no way to prove that I am indeed Robert Thomas Slater III on Wikipedia (though there is a wealth of publicly-available information to prove this in the real world), that any actual qualifications are rendered irrelevant on WP.
 * I utilized strong language because I am passionate about my career and my profession, and hold very strong opinions towards anything that I deem to be hazardous to the public health; I subsequently redacted this strong language once I realized that it violates the principles of Wikipedia. I am now exceedingly aware that Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for such discussions, although I have not changed my perspective towards those that abuse their power to cause indirect harm, whether intentional or unintentional, to readers that are seeking information to improve their health.
 * My experience has been that many of the frequent editors of topics pertaining to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) think they are protecting the public from harmful information, and that they have good intentions. But I do not believe that the majority of such editors have the education, training, or experience to provide meaningful or accurate information to properly influence the health of their readers; and therefore, that their mutual "consensus" on such topics is of little real-world value.
 * To anyone who happens to read this, please be mindful that what is published on Wikipedia can have real and tangible effects on Wikipedia readers in their actual lives. Regardless of whether anyone believes I am who I say I am, please know that there are health professionals that face the daily reality of navigating the harms of wayward medical advice with their patients. I presume that most of the editors of CAM topics on Wikipedia do not face this reality, but should be aware that what they write (or what they delete from other contributors) may be causing indirect harm to a multitude of people. Further, much of what I have encountered as "consensus" on CAM topics on Wikipedia would be deemed as non-expert opinion by the medical profession when viewed under the lens of rigorous scientific inquiry. In the medical community, expert opinion is deemed credible when it is the best evidence available, whereas non-expert opinion bears relatively little weight. On Wikipedia, however, medical expertise appears to be of minimal value, whereas the personal opinions of frequent contributors determines the content reflected herein (and frequently does not come anywhere close to meeting MEDRS criteria); some of these published opinions could be deemed malpractice if scrutinized by the actual medical community, but are exempt from such scrutiny in this virtual forum.
 * As a parting thought, I would implore contributors to CAM topics to take a truly neutral perspective (a skeptic perspective should NOT be construed as neutral) so as best to serve the health of the public. I have noticed a trend on Wikipedia of a categorical disregard of CAM topics as pseudo-science, and this undiscerning stance could be swaying many people from pursuing therapies that could have real and impactful health benefits in their lives.
 * Rslateriii (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You've simply failed to recognize that you are in new territory, here in Wikipedia. And for the second time, instead of simply trying to learn, you have written another self-important screed. Whatever. If you ever want to start helping build this encyclopedia, there will be people (me among them) willing to help you learn how this place works.  Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I do appreciate you taking the time to share the above information with me. For what it's worth, I did learn a few things: the WPPROMO policy, how to strikethrough statements, and what UTC means. But more importantly, I learned in this process that I do have more to learn about Wikipedia first, and probably am not ready for any sizable publications on WPMED topics on this encyclopedia quite yet. I may eventually try my hand at some significant revisions of CAM topics sometime in the future, if time permits. But for now, I will bid WPMED adieu until I have a chance to do some proper research on how to post here.
 * Rslateriii (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As you will. CAM topics are controversial (hence the discretionary sanctions which we have on most real world controversial topics) and it is way, way easier to learn on non-controversial topics.  We have great need of people who understand the medical literature to work on very basic stuff; things fall out of date and need to be maintained.  You would have an easier time learning working on mainstream medical topics and gain a grounding on how we think about sourcing and how to summarize sourcing, so that when you went to work on harder, more controversial stuff, your feet would be firmly on the ground here.  As a for example, I have been trying to get time to update our article on Quinolone antibiotics (the main article and the specific drugs) with up to date clinical guidelines and just can't seem to get to them. That kind of thing would be immensely helpful and you could learn a lot.
 * The three key documents to understand are WP:MEDRS (what "counts" as a reliable source for content about health), WP:MEDMOS (the manual of style - what language we avoid and how articles are structured) and WP:MEDHOW, which has lots of basic guidance (like how to format references). Working on something mundane, following those three guidance documents, would be a better way to learn and would help build the encyclopedia.
 * and if you make a mistake and get reverted, don't have a cow, just ask and learn so you improve. Not rocket science, really. :) Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jytdog; this is quite helpful. I will try to follow this advice and make some WPMED updates as I encounter gaps on WP, or new meta-analyses in the medical literature (as time permits).
 * Rslateriii (talk) 2:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)