User talk:Tekaphor

 [ Click here to start a new message section at the bottom of this talkpage.]

TALKPAGE ARCHIVES : Archive 1 (2007-2009 inclusive) | Archive 2 (2010-2011 inclusive)

Thanks you for work
I would just like to say a brief thank your for your positive input on the CFS-Treatment page of WP, it has shown some improvement since your involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 01:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 02:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Aggressive Reverts
Hi Tek,

ScienceWatcher has yet again revert my edit (this time to the NADH section). I have found no less than three reviews that do not support his negative statement about the study. He has reverted the content and removed all of those references. I have created a slightly softer version in an attempt to compromise - would you please check is and see if you think it's even handed? (Just in case we need to deal with further aggressive reversions). User:Leopardtail


 * I will leave a comment on the talkpage. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 04:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Great work.
Tek, well sourced, well written content has effectively addressed NPOV vis-a-vis CBT on the CFS Treatment page. Great work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 07:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 01:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Criteria
I just stumbled across a review of criteria, not had chance to read it yet, not will I till later in the week, but thought you also might want a look at it. Case definitions for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): a systematic review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will have a look later. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 02:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Subsuming ME under CFS is prejudicial to the ongoing debate.
There are two distinct opinions: one that ME is the same as CFS; and two, that ME is not the same as CFS. Having only one entry (for CFS) prejudices the ongoing debate (in favour of the idea that ME is merely a synonym of CFS and therefore not worthy of its own separate entry). But it remains a debate and in the interests of fairness, there should be a separate entry for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. Rialto Davies (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for butting in but there was once an article specifically for ME. Then it got merged into CFS creating an article which encompassed more than one ICD code (International Statistical Classification of Diseases) entry. Leaving us with the mess of an article we have today. So, I support having such a split again. Medical science (as you are already aware) advances by applying ever finer definitions, not by taking two or three steps back and lumping together, everything that produces red spots as the same disease just because the common main signs and symptoms are red spots and a high temperature.--Aspro (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

“CFS” article title change to “ME/CFS”?
Hey Tekaphor, how are you? Looks like u haven’t been editing recently, but there’s an important issue up for discussion- whether to change the title of the CFS article to “ME/CFS.” We could use the perspective of an informed editor like you… “It has been proposed in this section that Chronic fatigue syndrome be renamed and moved to Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome.” Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome JustinReilly (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)