User talk:Eubulides

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
through 2007-12-31

Contents

[edit] Autism sandbox

If you want this assessment info somewhere, please copy it over. I'm going to db-author it soon. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medical sources for ASD articles

The Encephalon Cross For the most thorough application of Wikipedia's principles wrt to the sourcing of medical articles. Colin°Talk 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The Encephalon Cross
For the most thorough application of Wikipedia's principles wrt to the sourcing of medical articles. Colin°Talk 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, your attention to detail and continuous incremental improvements to the Autism articles are noted and appreciated. It is about time you created a Barnstars section on your usepage, no? Colin°Talk 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, great job at moving and improving the cites at Heritability of autism. Cheers! Bearian (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You deserve the Order of Hercules, for taking on the task of cleansing this particular Augean stables. Though I don't think such an award exists, yet... MastCell Talk 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing the Time Measurement and Standards Topics template

I have no problems with edits to the template, including making the title bar match Wikipedia standards of capitalization for readers. This is all fine, and I'm not precious about layout or anything.

But please do not redirect to edit the template. It does not allow updates to reach all of the entries. Thanks. -- Yamara 11:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't say what was technically wrong with your redirect; but only about half of the pages actually redirected and the other half were somehow still showing the old template. This was confirmed by a check of the "What links here" page. This doesn't seem to have been a local cache error on my machine, as I tested it on another machine and other browsers. In any case, I've no objection to your edits (though I took off a couple links for reasons explained on the template's talk page). --I'd have no objection the redirect, either, except it wasn't accepted by all the pages. Is the reason for this known only to server gremlins...? -- Yamara 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
I see you're busy replacing all of the links in the Time measurement and standards Template. Busywork sucks, but someone's gotta do it; I had already done it once, and you are making the needed corrections across the board. FYI, I am creating more Time-subheaded-templates-- but will title them right this time. Kudos. -- Yamara 05:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reactive attachment disorder

SandyGeorgia kindly peer reviewed this for us and left us some work to do and instructions to ask you (or 2 others who are both busy) to review it further before we apply for FAC. We've done as much as we can and would really appreciate a further review. The discussion with SandyGeorgia is on the project page [1] and my talkpage [2]. Thanks. Fainites barley 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Any more?Fainites barley 21:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I think you can help review how the controversies are handled. Also, to find some way of mentioning researchers that doesn't look like medical-journal-speak, or rephrasing to avoid mentioning them. Clearly, there are a few lead authors in this field that are worth highlighting by name. See my comments on peer-review. Colin°Talk 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, I'm trying to help Fainites clean up the refs, which have inconsistent formatting. We're both having problems getting the DOIs right (for example, here). Do you have time to take a look? I'll also post to Tim and Colin to see who gets there first. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your help. Fainites barley 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bold font on volume

Do we need to adjust WP:MOSBOLD? Where did that come from? I wish the right hand would talk to the left on Wiki.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Peer review/Concussion

Hi Eubulides, I wondered if I could ask a favor. SandyGeorgia recommended that I ask you for a review of concussion. I'd like to get it up to FA eventually. I'd love it if you could comment at the review. There have been several comments at on the writing, but no one has really thoroughly evaluated the accuracy. Any help you could offer would be very much appreciated. Thanks, delldot talk 09:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much, very detailed! I'll work on your suggestions over the next couple days. Peace, delldot talk 08:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for taking so much time to help me, I certainly appreciate it :) delldot talk 20:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rage Epilepsy deletion

I just got your message today about the proposed (and now done) deletion of my Rage Epilepsy article. Im curious about what the justification for deleting this article were. It was well research, certinaly not nonsense even if the citations were not formated property, but the citations were all there, another more experienced user could have fixed them. The fact that this is a real condition which wikipedia has no article on, which gives those researching it easy access to resources should have been in its favor....I just done see how it was a candidate for speedy deletion ? wikipedia has numerous crappy and non-sensical and plagarized crap articles, why was this article considered so bad ? Dowew (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rotavirus

Dear Eubulides, rotavirus has a short, but important Epidemiogy section. Would you have time to check it? Colin, has provided me with several, very helpful full reviews of the article, but we both would v. much appreciate your critical appraisal of this section in particular and any related issues in the Lead. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suicidality and Antiepileptic Drugs

Eubulides, could you look at my note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Suicidality and Antiepileptic Drugs? I think you might be able to help. If such a study exists, your radar might be able to find it. Thanks, Colin°Talk 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI notification

FYI, [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Typo alert (with also had); not sure how you want to fix it, so I left it alone. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RAD

Just to let you know I nominated this for FAC. Fainites barley 21:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccine court

Thanks for the constructive criticism. One thing: IMHO the term "scare," even if used by a quoted source, is a pejorative term that imputes irrationality to those who might merely have valid -concerns- about something. Mbstone (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What if that "concern" has been inspired by irrationality, as well as by hatred of mainstream medicine? -- Fyslee / talk 06:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Here's how I read it once somewhere, don't remember where. A redirect taxes Wiki's servers. But editing an article only to fix a redirect also taxes Wiki's servers. So, editing only to fix a redirect isn't recommended (which I did), while fixing redirects when you're already editing is recommended, as it avoids future taxing of the server. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Job!

Hi Eubulides,

I just wanted to thank you for your good work on the chiropractic article, especially with respect to cleaning up the referencing to a better format. I'm sure the community appreciates it as well. Cheers. 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deja moo

Where have I seen this before :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stimming

For you, [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of mind impairment in autism

Hello Eubulides. I created an article called Does the autistic child have a 'theory of mind'? and now, due to some reasons, I have to change the title of the article to Theory of mind impairment in autism. Can I define the theory of mind impairment in autism as the inability to ascribe mental states to oneself and others? I think you can help me on this. I am finding it difficult to define this phrase. Please see the article and give me some suggestions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ah, I was just coming to ask Eubulides to peek in on the progress. I originally prodded the article for notability because it was a summary of one research paper only (Does the autistic child have a 'theory of mind'?), but Masterpiece2000 is working to turn into a more comprehensive article. Eubulides might be able to help broaden the scope, to make sure it covers more/other research in the area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Along the same lines, I just removed a lot of WP:PEACOCKery from Simon Baron-Cohen and added several cite tags, in case you are able to complete any of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam/COI list

I don't know what this is about, but I had a big fit over it once and got "whitelisted"; now you're on the list, too.[6] If you want to do something about it, I'll have to really dig back in my talk page archives to figure out what I did to get whitelisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Know this journal?

Question here, but follow my link to Beetstra's page for more info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alzheimer's disease

Your input would be appreciated on a question re global prevalence at Talk:Alzheimer's disease#Prevalence. LeadSongDog (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Social Stories

Hello,

SandyGeorgia mentioned that I might ask you to look over an article I just helped to significantly edit to get some of your feedback. It is called social stories. Thanks for your help!--Svernon (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=194378722&oldid=194378369

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&oldid=194269776#_note-Edzard_Ernst It was reference 79.

Actually, you did not fix the broken link. The reference was deleted from the entire article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your editng the older version of the Safety section. I have a better version. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you correctly selected the lastest version. I double checked. Continue editing. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
User:QuackGuru/Sandbox 4 I suggest we work together in a sandbox such the one I created to NPOV the Safety section. I think it might be impossible to gain consensus on anything that would even come close to NPOV at the talk page. There is a new Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard that will help the the current content dispute. We can work together on this along with uninvolved editors from the noticeboard. There is no point to continuing the discussion on the talk page when the proposed draft has already been rejected or being striked out. QuackGuru (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This again QG is tantamount to canvassing which is in poor taste considering the majority of the editors at the chiropractic disagree on your edits based on the quality of the citations and writing. I've already asked you to review Sackett's levels of evidence since you're having difficulty understanding our concerns regarding your edits. EBDCM (talk) 06:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The best approach is to create an NPOV version of the Safety section and go straight to the noticeboard. The talk page looks like a warzone. QuackGuru (talk) 06:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
How can you claim to be interested in making safety "NPOV" when you cite and refer to Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch? It already is NPOV; and the talk page is exactly where we debate the finer points of the article. EBDCM (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind. I want to update the article right now, including all the proposed drafts and suggestions. QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Some info in the 'mixers' section got deleted.[7] The section is short. I thought it was helpful that I expanded it. QuackGuru (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Your edit removed new information I added to the mixers section. Can you add that back in or explain. QuackGuru (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about Fyslee's change which deleted text from the mixers section that described the reformer group. I am talking about your recent edit that deleted info from the mixers section. QuackGuru (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the draft for the minority viewpoint. I hope you have time to improve it. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilk v. AMA, 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990). Wilk vs American Medical Association Summary Here are two refs currently in the article. I am not sure which template is best to use in this case. Any thoughts. QuackGuru 00:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to format the refs. Do you know which template I should use for court cases. QuackGuru 02:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any misunderstanding about the ref improvement issue. I tried to delete the comment. It was restored. See User talk:Vassyana#please help QuackGuru 16:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you ever read my new cost-benefit section or anything in my sandbox 4. If so, what did you think. QuackGuru 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I already written effectiveness 3 and expanded the lead of scientific investigsation in my sandbox but I had it archived. I made numerous improvements throughout the entire article in my sandbox. Did you ever see any of my improvements to anything I did in my sandbox. I contacted you by e-mail a little while ago about the cost-benefit as soon as I finished. I thought you might have read some of it. But now I assume you did not get my e-mail to review it. Oh well. QuackGuru 16:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The part about authoritative 2004 review is unsourced. The previous ref from effectiveness 1 verifies it. QuackGuru 08:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope you are not serious about adding unverified text using the wrong reference. I have strong objections with the unverified text. In my sandbox 4 I have already fixed it along with my other concerns. QuackGuru 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I explained on the talk about your recent edits. There is broad consensus among external third-party input for my recent changes. I would appreciate it if you can restore the deleted text. The new RFC supporting my recent change from the exteranl observers is to be respected. Any minor changes or tweaks can be done in mainspace. It was premature to delete text when the external advise approved of the changes. I prefer the internal conflicts at the end of the schools of the thought and practice styles section. You made some tweaks to the internal conflicts information and that made it even better. Thanks. QuackGuru 04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I added the word "comprehensive" to 2004 review in two sentences. Would it be better for the word to remain or be changed to another word or deleted. Thoughts? QuackGuru 02:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic probation

Hi, it is indeed covered. Please bring it up at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents if you want to have it not be. Lawrence § t/e 22:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thought you might be interested

[8] - news story on how unusual food preferences may lead to thinner bones in autistic kids. WLU (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

oh, please do pursue this, I've long been interested, having observed spectrum kids with idiosyncratic eating patterns, wondering about the prognosis ... I know one kiddo who seems to live on catsup, with his fries and McNuggets, and who won't eat hardly anything else. This has got to be a big issue for autism spectrum kiddos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I made this change to Gluten-free, casein-free diet and this change to Autism therapies. Eubulides (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As always Eub, you are a machine and force to be reckoned with. Glad I could help, wish I was less lazy and had added it myself. Thanks! WLU (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Reviewers Award The Reviewers Award
Many thanks for your help in getting RAD into a fit state to be seen. Fainites barley 19:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misattribution problems

FYI....

In a 1995 report produced by the National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Company (NCMIC), and reported in the JMPT, manipulations administered by a Kung Fu practitioner, GPs, osteopaths, physiotherapists, a wife, a blind masseur, and an Indian barber had all been incorrectly attributed to chiropractors. The report goes on to say:

"The words chiropractic and chiropractor have been incorrectly used in numerous publications dealing with SMT injury by medical authors, respected medical journals and medical organizations. In many cases, this is not accidental; the authors had access to original reports that identified the practitioner involved as a nonchiropractor. The true incidence of such reporting cannot be determined. Such reporting adversely affects the reader's opinion of chiropractic and chiropractors."[1]

In a 1999 review[2] of the scientific literature on the risks and benefits of manipulation of the cervical spine (MCS), special care was taken, whenever possible, to correctly identify all the professions involved, as well as the type of manipulation responsible for any injuries and/or deaths. It analyzed 177 cases that were reported in 116 articles published between 1925 and 1997, and summarized:

"The most frequently reported injuries involved arterial dissection or spasm, and lesions of the brain stem. Death occurred in 32 (18%) of the cases.....Although the risk of injury associated with MCS appears to be small, this type of therapy has the potential to expose patients to vertebral artery damage that can be avoided with the use of mobilization (nonthrust passive movements)."

For the purpose of comparison, the type of practitioner was adjusted according to the findings by Terrett, thus ensuring that further misattribution did not occur.[1]

The review concluded:

"The literature does not demonstrate that the benefits of MCS outweigh the risks. Several recommendations for future studies and for the practice of MCS are discussed."[2]

In Figure 1[3] in the review, the types of injuries attributed to manipulation of the cervical spine are shown, and Figure 2[4] shows the type of practitioner involved in the resulting injury.

Refs

  1. ^ a b Terrett AGJ (1995) Misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury. J Manip Physiol Ther 18:203. PubMed - PMID: 7636409
  2. ^ a b Di Fabio RP. "Manipulation of the Cervical Spine Risks and Benefits" Phys Ther. 1999 Jan;79(1):50-65. PMID: 9920191
  3. ^ Figure 1. Injuries attributed to manipulation of the cervical spine.
  4. ^ Figure 2. Practitioners providing manipulation of the cervical spine that resulted in injury.

I suggest you study the Di Fabio paper carefully. To date, it is still the best research on the subject I know of. Interestingly, even when extra pains have been taken to avoid mistakenly attributing VBAs to the wrong practitioner (and I believe all practitioners should avoid the technique), the statistics (in the charts) still speak for themselves. BTW, Wikipedia actually needs an article on VBA's, as indicated by this. The closest thing we have is Vertebrobasilar insufficiency, and it doesn't deal with traumatic etiology. -- Fyslee / talk 04:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for cleaning up the Vaccine court‎ article. Louis waweru (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS

Featured article, needing a minor tune-up. Interested?[9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. HIV at at FAC; you might want to review.
  2. Would you like to initiate the WP:FAR on AIDS? I wouldn't :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Will think about AIDS down the road; thanks for the review of HIV. Genetics is at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can help with a description of the problems at Wikipedia:Featured article review/AIDS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars survey

Hi Eubulides. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Just a follow up question for you -- have you ever given a barnstar (or would consider giving a barnstar) to a user participating on pages you don't keep close track of or to users you don't know well? And are specific edits to a page more useful information than any of the statistics in the survey? Thanks again for participating!
By 'user you know well' I mean users with whom you are familiar with from editing shared pages or with whom you've communicated on talk pages or in formal processes (e.g. RFAs, FACs, etc). For example, I saw many barnstars being given out for collaborative attitude or for nice user page design, and not for editing in the article space. Bestchai (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Source for AIDS/HIV ma

Image:AIDS and HIV prevalence.svg lists only "UNAIDS" as the source for the data. Can you please clarify whether it's the December 2007 UNAIDS report, or some other version? Thanks. This is needed so that we can put a proper caption and citation on it in the AIDS #Epidemiology page. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, I would if I could, but I did not create the map, it's only an improvement of the this image, so try to contact the original author, and ask him this, if you want. --ANONYMOUSPUSSY 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EBDCM

Could you give me your opinion of the changes this user has done to my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.45.230 (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I don't know what edits are being referred to here, nor do I know what changes EBDCM did to them. Do you have a Wikipedia account? Eubulides (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed chiropractic "is a complementary and alternative medicine health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual therapy" to "is a complementary and alternative medicine health care profession concerned with a range of human diseases including mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes manual therapy", but the user changed it. The article says straights say subluxation is a “primary underlying risk factor for almost any disease” and mixers “treat non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions”. So it's more than musculoskeletal. So who is right?

Both versions say chiropractors treat more than musculoskeletal, so in that sense both are "right". I don't see a great advantage of either version over the other. Eubulides (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I also wrote "Chiropractic beliefs vary from vitalism to materialism; these opposing philosophies have been a source of debate" but he altered it to read "Contemporary chiropractic belief systems vary along a philosophical spectrum ranging from vitalism to materialism; these opposing philosophies have been a source of debate ". Do you think mine was better? 125.168.45.230 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

One version is shorter, the other gives a bit more detail. The "Contemporary" is redundant and should go, but other than that both versions have advantages. Eubulides (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that Contemporary is redundant; indeed it represents the "maturation" of the profession on many levels. This is also what is referred to as "progressive" paradigm of chiropractic http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-professional-studies.html. Indeed, I would opine that the evidence-based wing of chiropractic are the contemporary chiropractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBDCM (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's take the "Contemporary" discussion to Talk:Chiropractic. Come to think of it, all of this discussion should have been on Talk:Chiropractic. Eubulides (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DC Scope of Practice

Eubulides, want to help me flesh out an acceptable DC scope of practice section? I think PPC would be a good place to start but do not have access to this book currently. What do you think? EBDCM (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS

AIDS has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schizophrenia

I don't have this source, but this doesn't smell right.[10] Are you able to add anything? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jddarbro -typo correction

Good day to you Eubulides,

Yesterday while reading through the "autism" I discovered an incorrect information listed under the Characteristics Social Development heading.

As stated:

"Autistic toddlers have more striking social deviance; for example they have less eye contact and anticipatory postures and are less likely to use another person's hand or body as a tool. [21]"

According to the evidence listed, autistic toddlers are more likely to use another person's hand or body as a tool.

Within source 21 (which is cited ) I quote:

"They [autistic toddlers] are less likely to use contact and conventional gestures but are more likely to use highly unvoncentional gestures such as manipulating their conversational partner's hand to obtain objects (Stone et al. 1997)."

You can find this quote by looking at the source 21 page 326 (of the pdf) under the heading Communicative Development. It is the last sentence in the second paragraph.

So, there is certainly a misinformation /typo in the current wikipedia "autism" page under the Characteristics Social Development heading.

It should read "Autistic toddlers have more striking social deviance; for example they have less eye contact and anticipatory postures and are more likely to use another person's hand or body as a tool. [21]"

Since this information is listed under the current cite 21, no further citation is needed for this change to be made according to Wikipedian citation standards (although further citation could be done).

Please review this information and let me know what you think.

let's fix this typo! Jddarbro

[edit] Sources for the health effects of cigars.

Although the source you have cited for the health effects caused by smoking cigars states that cigars "cause" what is stated. It has not been entirely proven that smoking cigars will cause many types of cancer, including that of the lung and upper digestive tract. It has also not been proven many of these cancers have extremely low cure rates. Although you can say the risks are greater, it is not possible to prove that that is either correct or incorrect. If someone were to smoke a cigar with no other possible health risks, you can't prove that they will have cancer that has an extremely low cure rate. The only accurate way to describe the effects of cigars on any one person in the world would be to put a word or group of words that shows of a possibility of such events. It would an assumption to say otherwise.

[edit] Autism Speaks

They're still at it over there :-) I just read the source about the alleged "driving off the bridge" scenario, and it still seems misrepresented in the article. Do you have more info and can you fix it? The article doesn't mention the context; that the mother was referencing a desire to avoid a bad school, not so much the autism. What am I missing? Can you fill out the context if you know the story and have more sources? The way the story is presented, compared to the one source I read, seems a bit unfair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the harsh criticism surrounding the film is directed at Alison Tepper Singer, a mom featured in the film and a staff member of Autism Speaks. About midway through the film, Singer discusses her reaction to inadequate classrooms. "I remember that was a scary moment for me when I realized I had sat in the car for about 15 minutes and actually contemplated putting Jody in the car and driving off the George Washington Bridge. That would be preferable to having to put her in one of these schools." It was only because of her other child, she said, that she didn't do it.[11]

It's not exclusively about autism (as written at least): I can imagine the same thoughts from people who are now forced to put their children in Hugo Chavez's new brainwashing propaganda forced curriculum schools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That's better for context; thanks ! (Saw an Asperger's story on the front page of CNN.com today, but don't have to digest.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autism

Yes, and I apologized several hours ago to the editor who fixed it. As I said on his talk page, I can't explain how it happened, but it certainly was not deliberate. - DaveSeidel (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stimming

I reverted this; I've never seen mention in any literature. Are you aware of any research? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as I suspected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MEDMOS

Please weigh in here if you have a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One last wrinkle. Are you happy to remove a couple of options from the list? Colin°Talk 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFP TS article

I have the article now and will be reading if/when I get a FAC break, but ... as feared ... the very first source is to a controversial publication from a Baylor physician that included an inaccurate, non-DSM, basic definition of Tourette's that they seem to favor. If this article furthers those non-DSM personal interpretations of TS, that's a big problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Done; it was mercifully short and not as controversial as their previous publications (which they cite often), but typically not quite as rigorous as the articles I prefer (they cite some of their own publications to give a sense of medical consensus to some areas that aren't as clearcut as they make them out to be). I didn't find anything new and useful. Anyway, the paper's strengths are where Baylor's strengths typically are; although they have furthered some controversial notions on TS in the past, they are the go-to guys on tourettism, secondary causes of tics, and differential diagnosis. A lot of the tourettism info goes over my head, but there is some good info here that could be used to upgrade our article, if you're interested in giving it a go? What is in our article now is info I pulled together from several different places (mostly them, but how to weave it together was hard for me), and some of it got messed up a bit when a physician new to Wiki (who turned out to know nothing about tics, and later left Wiki) tried to help. If you've got time, this article could really be helpful in completing the tourettism article. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You may find

You may find the information quote "which I find less than useful". But think of the newbie hitting that 'edit this page' tab for the first time. Just because you are experienced others may not and may need direction. A comment left on the articles page is information being conveyed to other editors, who might not be as knowledgeable as you. pete 16:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing to see

Just letting you know: [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sports chiro AfD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_Chiropractic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sports_Chiropractic Their talkpage is the funniest part. Are you allowed to say wankers on wikipedia? Mccready (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR revisit

Wikipedia:Featured article review/AIDS has been up for over a month now; would you mind revisiting concerns to discuss whether issues have been addressed, and to enter a Remove or Keep declaration as appropriate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like TimVickers and OrangeMarlin have decided to engage and try to clean it up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autism rights movement

Hola Eub,

I think it's a bit out of your purview, normally I'd ask Sandy but she's taking a break and I'm more than happy to leave her to that. Would you mind having a look at this? I don't think you've touched ARM, but I don't know how reliable the source is so I'm reluctant to even integrate. Thanks, WLU (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DOI bot

Hi, thanks for your feedback on DOI bot! To keep the discussion coherent, I've replied on my talk page, and would welcome your response there. All the best, Smith609 Talk 22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] ASD in Males and Females

About the ASD in Males and Females I added to Aspergers. You're right, it should just be about aspergers. But you can check the links to see that these are all actually about Aspergers but it applies to ASD as well so I made it ASD to cover both bases but you're right, it shouldn't say ASD here. I am reposting with AS. (I am quite knowledgeable in the subject because I have aspergers. They pay me to study me at Mt Sinai in NYC)

Drewhamilton (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] freely available

Hi - thanks for the link - Kaptchuk & Eisenberg 1998 (PMID 9818801). - you write "freely" available. How do I get from [13] to the full paper? (This is rather exciting cause if this one is freely available then more of other links that I can only read the abstract of may also be accessible. my beating heart be still.) SmithBlue (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC) That last link worked fine. But for me the NCBI PubMed title is just black letters with no hypertext. Am using Firefox - maybe IE will be different. Have formed opinion that WP editors should have online journal access. (smile) Thanks SmithBlue (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Savant syndrome

I've been chipping away at the mess there (including the ignored Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aetoss) for months, but it may be to a point now that you might be able to take it to the next level (that is from negative something to about a zero :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scahill

Never thought I'd see the day :-) [14] Scahill cited on autism! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not such a small world ... those guys are the best, and Larry Scahill is one of the best of the best. And, since Volkmar got the slot when Cohen died, well, the future is in autism research :-) Anyway, Scahill knows risperidone and psychopharm like nobody's business. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Son-Rise Program

Dear User: Eubuildes,
I do not know how to follow that reference you told me about. When I clicked on it. I was only able to find multiple stores around the globe with the

book. But, I was not able to even search through the book. So, I am not able to find what you are talking about. But, I think the article should not state choose or decide. Because, Son-Rise does not help the kid think, "I have autism and I choose (or decide) not to have autism anymore." It's a neurological disorder where part's of your brain is mixed up. But, Son-Rise gets the child to trust the person by knowing that they are not judged and someone likes what they like. Which is ASD's main core "trusting to want to socialize and communicate." Then, once the child learns to trust the person. They, then smile and make eye contact, because they want to and slowly, by slowly (if they are lucky) recover. They don't choose not to have autism. They choose, to smile, eye contact, play etc. For example, you can't (choose or decide) not to have Anxiety disorder. But, they can choose to listen to the advice about what can help them not be anxious and want to use the advice.

I think we should not cite that context and put "The child will eventually want to look at you, and/or do the given task." So what every Bears Kaufman said, doesn't make sense. I don't think we should cite that piece, he should of described that part differently. Thanx! Please reply back at my talk page! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism

Dear Eubuildes,
I posted a comment at the end of the Autism's talk page.
I am wondering if you can answer it.
Thanx! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For you.

The Editor's Barnstar
For your superb writing (and maintenance/troll-whacking) on ASD articles. It takes time, effort, and patience, therefore I applaud you. · AndonicO Engage. 00:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Autism

I made a comment on the Autism talk page. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trichotillomania

I don't have access to the full-text study, so I don't know if this is vandalism or a correction.[15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no sources there, and have just been trying to keep it clean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic 3rr warning

A note you left on my talk page suggests that you may not precisely understand WP:3RR, and may have accidentally violated it.

“ An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. ”

Now, there are exceptions, such as removal of clear vandalism or (sometimes) edits in violation of clear consensus (but not major changes made without consensus), removal of WP:BLP violations, and possibly removal of any edit by a banned editor. And, of course, a consecutive series of edits is considered to be at most one revert, regardless of how many edits that may be partial reverts in that set of edits.

But I think you may have accidentally violated 3RR, as I see 5 series of edits in the last 24 hours, each of which has a single edit which states it is removing part of a previous edit. Now, replacing a {{fact}} tag with a source is not a "reversion", unless that source was previously removed. Replacing an unreliable source with a {{fact}} tag is more likely to be a revert, as it's probable (especially in this article) that someone previously applied the {{fact}} tag.

Be careful. I'd prefer that the disruptive 3RR violators be blocked, but, as an involved admin, it would be improper for me to choose 3RR violaters to report on any subjective grounds. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note added to Arthur Rubin's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic

Hi Eubulides, I just wanted to thank you for the effort you have put forward in drafting the various effectiveness sections. This recent edit war over at Chiropractic really shows the difference in editting styles. It highlights how if a draft section is put on the talk page, discussion can occur without the frustration that occurs during edit wars, and a consensus can be obtained on exactly HOW to word the text. It is much more of a collaborative system than the BRD cycle. DigitalC (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! The BRD cycle is only useful on small, uncontroversial articles with few or no currently active editors. On controversial articles that are being watched and edited by groups with strong POV it encourages disruptive, solo, uncollaborative editing which inevitably leads to edit wars and lock downs. It is then a very destructive method to follow and should not be used at all. I wish we could formulate a modification to that essay explaining this. -- Fyslee / talk 05:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Eubulides. I replied to some of the comments you made on Education 3, and hopefully improvements will be made to the draft. In replying, I refactored your large comment into smaller sections by copying your signature so that I could reply in a threaded fashion. If you object to this in any way, please let me know and I will self revert. DigitalC (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Following up on the above, I just came across this; I wanted to let you know that concerns were raised here and followed up on here. MedCab is strictly volunteer, can often be worse than a waste of time, actually causing damage, and other venues of dispute resolution have better reputations and are more likely to be effective. I think a complex and controversial topic would benefit from input from editors experienced with controversial medical topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that unless the MedCab actually follows all aspects of the evidence and not limit itself to biased "reviews" and the bait wikilawyering under a myopic adherence to MEDRS guidelines this is a recipe for disaster. You're suggesting that we bring chiropractic medicine in and get dissected by the mainstream medical community who have historically tried to contain, eliminate and marginalize the chiropractic profession. In fact, I openly consider the majority of edits introduced by Eubulides attempts to subvert, marginalize or introduce controversy to article and destabilise it. He has failed to achieve consensus for ANY of his proposed edits, in part, because his edits which are supposedly promoting the mainstream view, are mostly against what the MAJORITY POV of mainstream medicine. For example, Eubulides' recent "effectiveness" draft of spinal manipulation (which is a synthesis of chiropractic, osteopathic, allopathic and physical therapy researchers) suggests there is no agreement of benefit for spinal manipulation with low back pain. This "conclusion" that Eubulides has concocted with a cherry picking of literature to promote a skewed POV of a topic. First and foremost, the majority of the literature suggests SMT is effective for acute and chronic LBP. It's pretty well understood fact. It's been researched for 25 years and the majority of studies agree, that yes, spinal manipulation is generally effective for mechanical, non-specific LBP. This is why the American College of Physicians have included spinal manipulation in the 2007 Clinical Practice Guidelines. In fact, the Chiropractic and Allopathic CPG for Nonspecific LBP management is virtually identical. Unbelievably, Eubulides objects to include the expert review that led to the US Allopathic CPGs led by Dr. Chu! Has wikipedia and chiropractic skeptics sank so far as to prevent the inclusion of an expert review article in Annals of Internal Medicine? Because Eubulides has objected to the inclusion of the American College of Physicians very own practice guidelines.

Lastly, SandyGeorgia, is it customary for experienced editors (such as yourself) to act as proxies or a personal communications officer and lobby an adminstrator (Arthur Rubin) as you did here who has rebuked Eubulides for potentially engaging in a covert edit war at Chiropractic? Because, for the record, myself and many other editors there have had major issues with Eubulides style of editing and have had a very difficult time communicating with him our concerns regarding his edits which have not yet been addressed over the past 4 months now. CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply at CorticoSpinal's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Canterbury Tales

Can you please change the position of the image located at the top of this article? Don't you think that a long image at the top looks bad? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Query on presenting numbers

Eubulides, I wonder if you could comment at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of HIV-positive people regarding the best way to express the number infected worldwide. We don't know whether it is best to quote the precise number from the source, even though it may then look falsely accurate, or round it. Cheers, Colin°Talk 13:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good change to the lead there. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: SteveBot

Hi there. Just thought i'd let you know it's my fault about the duplicate banners on the pages you mentioned to Steve, I forgot to tell him i'd already added some templates. I apologise for the inconvenience, i'm now looking to see if there are any more duplicates out there. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 16:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DST Energy Savings

Hi... I included DST as a technology on the solar energy page a while back. I've since removed it pending review. I'd like to know if you would judge DST a solar energy technology? The best report I could find to back up the energy savings benefits of DST came out of California. Recently I added up the daily/monthly energy savings from the report and found an overall savings of .002 exajoules/year. This is equal to a fifth of 1% of total electricity use in California. What is your opinion of the energy savings of DST? Does the added activity basically wash out the energy savings? Is it all regionally determined? Just wondering... Cheers Mrshaba (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Too good eh... Thanks. Mrshaba (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That works... Thanks Mrshaba (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Son-Rise

Dear User:Eubuildes,
Sorry, I did not try to start an edit war with you.
The problem is, is that the exact same text is underneath Effectiveness and it's a little odd to have it in two places.
Thanx!
ATC (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (Just to let you know, I changed my signature from AnnieTigerChucky to ATC. I am letting you know this, just in case you're confused.)

[edit] RE: Son-Rise and plurals

Dear Eubuildes,
that is odd, I guess I was thinking of first names.
Okay, I will revert the edit since a reliable website, wrote it the same way.
Can you please reply to the other comment above, though. Thanx!
ATC (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Henry Oliver Walker

I'm not terribly experienced at editing Wikipedia, but thank you for the work you did on the Henry Oliver Walker page. The images are arranged very nicely - and thank you for including the image of Lyric Poetry. However, you edited out a large portion of information which you thought was inappropriately posted. In the footnotes section of the essay I had stated that it was posted on Wikipedia by the original author, who happens to be me. Someone more familiar with Wiki advised me that it was okay to post the essay "under GFDL," and that person also formated the essay for me to abide with Wiki guidelines. I was under the impression that I could post it if it is original, properly referenced research.

I thank you for your efforts to keep the page clean and to protect copyrights. I think it would be fine to leave the page the way it is right now, though. No need to edit the essay back in. If people are truly interested in learning more about Walker they will visit HenryOliverWalker.com and see the essay there. If you don't mind me asking, how did you come across Walker's page in the first place? He's such an obscure (and underrated) artist that I would be interested to know how you discovered him and the image of Lyric Poetry.

Thanks... --Arthistoryguy (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spectrum disorder

Just rewritten, might need review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for responding, I am still on Wikipedia

Pedantic, prosody, and habituation were the main ones.

Tezkag72 (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

  1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
  2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnWtalk 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)