Hi DoctorBiochemistry! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC) |
Please don't remove an unresolved maintenance template in that article. It is still difficult to navigate just by its two section headers. Blue sphere 16:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Why did you remove them? Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
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:
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!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Charlie Gard treatment controversy. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Charlie Gard treatment controversy, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog ( talk) 21:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for reposting my contribution so many times. I do not understand why a section about the scientific basis of nucleoside therapy, citing papers from PubMed, is constantly being removed and tagged as not reliable material. The description given of nucleoside therapy is based on scientific literature, and does not deserve censorship.
Since this is a high profile case as other users have pointed out, it seems relevant for Wikipedia to add a section describing the scientific aspects behind this controversial case.
Comparing papers published in EMBO MOLECULAR MEDICINE and PNAS with CRYSTALBALL evidences is totally inappropiate.
Sorry also for not answering messages, I am still a newbie about wikipedia usage. Thanks.
Hi DoctorBiochemistry. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your edits to date are all about Charlie Gard treatment controversy, and based on the edits it would appear that you might have some connection with the people at Bambino Gesu Hospital who have been involved in public advocacy, as well as appealing to the English courts, to treat this child. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.
Hello, DoctorBiochemistry. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).
Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with the hospital or the Gard case, directly or through a third party? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 22:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
You asked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Gard treatment controversy why your contributions to the article had been repeatedly deleted. Primarily, it was because two of the three paragraphs you added were entirely unsourced, and the other paragraph made biomedical claims based on a single study on mice. That is utterly unacceptable for a serious encyclopedia. If you don't understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary one, please read through WP:MEDRS thoroughly, and try to understand why we insist on high-quality secondary sources for any claim of a biomedical nature. Simply being indexed in PubMed does not make a source secondary, or even necessarily high-quality. In addition, studies in animals are not reliable indicators of effects in humans, and should never be used to support claims or inferences that the effect may occur in humans. I hope this answers your questions, but if not, feel free to reply here, and I'll try to clarify further. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
"In the first decision taken ..."and
"In spite of the scientific evidences ...". Do you agree that they were wholly unsourced, or not?
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I can hardly believe that straight out of your block you're back at it on this article, inserting content which makes no mention of the Charlie Gard case, drawn in part from unreliable sources. Please read our WP:NOR policy. This is not the place for novel content speculating about therapies. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
If you try to restore this content again without discussing again, I will again take you to the edit warring board and this time you will be blocked for much longer.
Your recent editing history at Charlie Gard treatment controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog ( talk) 15:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog ( talk) 16:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Hi DoctorBiochemistry! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC) |
Please don't remove an unresolved maintenance template in that article. It is still difficult to navigate just by its two section headers. Blue sphere 16:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Why did you remove them? Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
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:
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!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Charlie Gard treatment controversy. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Charlie Gard treatment controversy, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog ( talk) 21:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for reposting my contribution so many times. I do not understand why a section about the scientific basis of nucleoside therapy, citing papers from PubMed, is constantly being removed and tagged as not reliable material. The description given of nucleoside therapy is based on scientific literature, and does not deserve censorship.
Since this is a high profile case as other users have pointed out, it seems relevant for Wikipedia to add a section describing the scientific aspects behind this controversial case.
Comparing papers published in EMBO MOLECULAR MEDICINE and PNAS with CRYSTALBALL evidences is totally inappropiate.
Sorry also for not answering messages, I am still a newbie about wikipedia usage. Thanks.
Hi DoctorBiochemistry. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your edits to date are all about Charlie Gard treatment controversy, and based on the edits it would appear that you might have some connection with the people at Bambino Gesu Hospital who have been involved in public advocacy, as well as appealing to the English courts, to treat this child. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.
Hello, DoctorBiochemistry. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).
Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with the hospital or the Gard case, directly or through a third party? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 22:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
You asked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Gard treatment controversy why your contributions to the article had been repeatedly deleted. Primarily, it was because two of the three paragraphs you added were entirely unsourced, and the other paragraph made biomedical claims based on a single study on mice. That is utterly unacceptable for a serious encyclopedia. If you don't understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary one, please read through WP:MEDRS thoroughly, and try to understand why we insist on high-quality secondary sources for any claim of a biomedical nature. Simply being indexed in PubMed does not make a source secondary, or even necessarily high-quality. In addition, studies in animals are not reliable indicators of effects in humans, and should never be used to support claims or inferences that the effect may occur in humans. I hope this answers your questions, but if not, feel free to reply here, and I'll try to clarify further. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
"In the first decision taken ..."and
"In spite of the scientific evidences ...". Do you agree that they were wholly unsourced, or not?
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I can hardly believe that straight out of your block you're back at it on this article, inserting content which makes no mention of the Charlie Gard case, drawn in part from unreliable sources. Please read our WP:NOR policy. This is not the place for novel content speculating about therapies. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
If you try to restore this content again without discussing again, I will again take you to the edit warring board and this time you will be blocked for much longer.
Your recent editing history at Charlie Gard treatment controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog ( talk) 15:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog ( talk) 16:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)