User talk:The Headless Horseman

Welcome!
Hello, The Headless Horseman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! LeadSongDog come howl!  02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Trigger point
Your edits at Trigger point seem to reflect a misunderstanding common to new editors. Unlike many other publications, Wikipedia is based on secondary sources rather than primary ones, such as those you are citing. Because WP is edited anonymously, we cannot make our own assessments as to which primary sources (such as trials) are or are not credible or significant. That would be considered a form of original research. Instead, we rely upon published secondary sources to provide those assessments. If this is not clear, please discuss on the article's talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I would think that peer-reviewed medical research trumps any sort of 'secondary sources'. Neither of us have to judge anything if it has been peer-reviewed and as you know, only peer-reviewed research gets the lofty status of being medically indexed...certainly, this standard is far above the standard held at Wikipedia. I've been published myself and know the rigors of the process. If someone wants to give an opinion, that's one thing...however, if hard science backs up a particular point, that's what people should really know. As is the case with most research, there can be two sides...however, when the preponderance of evidence points in a certain direction, that should not be ignored. In addition, the facts about steroid injections and their danger should not be discounted, especially after the deaths and injuries of 2012.

If you are referring to the steroid deaths and using a primary source, I will cite the CDC.

The Headless Horseman (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Peer review does not make a primary source secondary. The researchers who write the primary articles are not necessarily independent, and they inevitably think their work is important. Secondary writers are in a better position to make that assessment. Pubmed flags a portion of the papers indexed as "Review", "Systematic review", or similar. These are the sources we look for.  See wp:MEDRS for a further explanation.  In any case, your conflation of steroids with anaesthetics is simply wrong, irrespective of our standards of evidence. They are an entirely different kind of drug.  We certainly have no MEDRS which would argue that because a compounding pharmacy botched the preparation of drug S that somehow drug A is rendered more dangerous.  It's a nonsensical inference to begin with, and we don't draw inferences because that is wp:Original research, which is for others to do and publish. LeadSongDog  come howl!  17:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we disagree with this. You are putting in a single review study from 2009 that reviews 7 studies that the authors created criteria for....that's not always as valid as you think. I could put up 20+, if necessary, that would be supportive...maybe that is what I should do. I will fix things so that only studies 2008 and beyond go in...those are not subject to your 2009 review, which was only on 7 studies anyway. It just so happens that most studies post-2008 are very positive...and they're not being done in conjunction to prove a specific point. Maybe another updated review should be done. Until then, people should have access to what is being published in peer-reviewed journals.

You can look at studies to see who, if anyone, has backed them...most of them are going to be done by independent researchers. Mostly only with blockbuster drugs do you tend to find biased studies...and even then, if they are double blinded and randomized, it's hard to bias the numbers. Look, if you want wikipedia to really be for those who don't care about the truth, that is your prerogative. I find that fact-finding is very important and I'd rather make a conclusion, as a reader, from as many peer-reviewed studies as possible. Disregarding a lot of current research is not fair to the readers. 2009 was 4 years ago and that data is probably based on at a minimum at least 1 year prior to that. It is by no means the 'word' on Dry Needling and it calls for further research....and that is what I am providing to the reader. Let's be as truthful as possible.

As far as safety goes, there is an inherent risk whenever you inject anything into the body. One instance of a botched drug is a deal breaker for many who will no longer go that route. They should know what happened only a few months ago. You never know when the next bad batch will pop up. It's like this with any pharmaceutical. People should know.

I like the truth and to make wikipedia anything less is irresponsible. More facts are always better...you should agree to that.

I see you are a physicist...I'll assume a PhD...it's great to see you have an interest in trigger points, injections, etc...a lot of physics is theory based, but without others knowing of the direction of such thought, we'd be without a lot of what we know now. It's not up to one or a few of us to determine what the rest should know. We should have access to as much research as possible.

The Headless Horseman (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By all means find additional recent reviews to use. That is encouraged. Your "more facts are always better" is, however, quite mistaken. Many editors here have attempted to inject a non-neutral point of view into articles by cherry-picking facts that support their POV. Using peer-reviewed secondary sources is a safeguard against that. LeadSongDog  come howl!  04:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

So, your way of dealing with this is to block me out from putting in proper information? Amazing...and you think what you are doing is correct? It's great this is an open source as there are plenty out there who agree fully with putting the facts out and continuing to delete them is not proper. I made an edit to include what you had out there and you still changed it back. That is professional or certainly not mature. Now I know why people criticize Wikipedia so much. The readers should know the truth.

The Headless Horseman (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
Your recent editing history at Trigger point shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)