User talk:Mypc1

July 2020

Please review the sited references before jumping to conclusions. What makes editors here more special, privileged, or elite then MDs and PhDs who publish the studies, which were already reviewed in order to be published. You are mistaken. I have provided multiple references to the latest scientific journal and medical doctors. Please do delete my contributions that will allow individuals to make their informed decisions. Just because the article had not been reviewed from an unbiased perspective does NOT mean it warrants credibility. The inserted content is the scientific references, not imagined, nor fabricated. If you have disputed about your point of view talk to the Doctors, MDs and PhDs who published the studies. WIKI is for people to be educated not swayed by your point of view. Mypc1 (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Please review the sited references before jumping to conclusions. You are mistaken. I have provided multiple references to the latest scientific journal and medical doctors. Please do delete my contributions that will allow individuals to make their informed decisions.

You removed longstanding content and inserted content more to your liking that reversed the direction of the article. That kind of thing requires discussion on the talkpage. Make your case for your edits and sources there., keeping in mind that articles on medicine-related topics have a higher standard of sourcing than other areas of the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

July 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Don't delete or edit anyone's contributions on talk pages. That's not how it works. PainProf (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see my comments for the revision of the original article. The science is there, we need to provide readers with all the aspects (research) and help them form their conclusions. Mypc1 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. Please stop deleting talk page posts PainProf (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@ PainProf Please do now use the scare tactics. This is an open platform for people to provide educational materials. We will have the jury, site creators decide.Mypc1 (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mypc1, you are very welcome to express your opinion but you must not remove other's opinions from article talk pages because it is not a fair way to debate. This is a very important rule. I hope that we can move past this and you can engage. PainProf (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

PainProf Your point is taken about deleting the content. However, we cannot use one-sided arguments and have readers use WIKI as the "go-to" source for their information. We cannot state only certain opinions (that there are no health effects) and screen out other findings.

Mypc1, if you can find the sources we can discuss it, the medical sourcing policy is a bit complicated. But it boils down to, we source statements with the best sources, we don't use primary research (we use reviews where they talk about it, medical guidelines and textbooks), we aim for the absolute best sources, so indeed its a little elitist. I'm sorry if this is not the answer you are hoping for. If you can find some very reliable studies in renowned journals we will be happy to discuss how best to include it. You can always also get a second opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by PainProf (talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

PainProf Please understand that I'm not fishing for the answer. The purpose of my question about who can contribute is to see and verify if you have to be a Medically trained physician or just anyone. It seems that anyone makes decisions on what information gets posted.Mypc1 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep anyone, its meant to be self-correcting, and based on the sources.PainProf (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!

Welcome to Wikipedia and WikiProject Medicine

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 require recent secondary sources to support information; their 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.
• The Wikipedia community includes 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, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them 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! PainProf (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

May I ask, who are the contributors to that site, verified Medical Doctors? Mypc1 (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course you can, its a mix, so not everyone is a doctor but there are some medical professionals, I have a PhD in Science (Specifically pain) but certainly no-one is verified because Wikipedia is anonymous. You can check out the medical disclaimer for more on that. PainProf (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not mean to insult you or others, but I'm very much surprised that you as a PhD don't find references provided by the fellow MDs & PhDs as credible, https://mdsafetech.org/advocacy/, or the Keiser Permanente Study & EMF ( https://spotlight.kaiserpermanente.org/new-kaiser-permanente-study-provides-evidence-of-health-risks-linked-to-electromagnetic-field-exposure/ ). So my question is: what makes your point of view more credible than other professionals'? Please do not take this as an insult or offense, though. I'm just logically trying to understand, what makes editors here more special, privileged, or elite then MDs and PhDs who publish the studies, which were already reviewed in order to be published.Mypc1 (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the studies are contradictory to the established scientific consensus. The sources in the article establish the scientific consensus. Secondly we don't include primary research or websites of advocacy groups as sources. This is because there are 1000s of studies, it would overemphasize the study by those authors. Those papers are also not published in a reputable journal. It is precisely because noone here is verified that it is necessary to rely on such authoritative sources. Some editors here have a very hard line on fringe beliefs it may be best to avoid this particular topic area or gain some additional experience editing some less controversial topics first. As always if you find reliable sources open a dialogue on the chat page. There are a lot of resources for understanding what is reliable. I would say it can be a little tricky to understand what is reliable and what is not. If you have a strong interest in medical sources for now you can post them here and I will explain why it is or isn't reliable. Maybe you'd like to help on

an article I'm writing about factors that promote chronic pain development to gain some experience of scientific sources (on Wikipedia). PainProf (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)