User talk:Jackehammond/Archive 12

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Monorail, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Google is not a reliable source. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear C3F2k, You have to be joking. It is googlebooks which has a facsimile of old articles in publication. I am not going to revert it or challenge it, because I have other projects and I don't take myself so seriously. But if you become a Wiki Fanatic and delete all references that use googlebooks you will gut Wikipedia and it won't be long before you and the administrators have a good day. Btw, read the first message on this page and go to that Wikipedia essay. Jack

Googlebooks

Jack,

Not that I am aware of.

Having written that, I usually try to reference the original work by looking at the publisher, copyright year, author, etc. -- and basically cut Googlebooks out of the citation for the reference. Hope this helps. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wilson, I never mention googlebooks. You have to do an edit or open the link to find out I am using googlebooks to that publication and page, for example this ref I found for the [[Hawker Sea Hawk] that had a notice boxes stating it lacked references -- ie it was not reverted and is still there: "Rocket Motor Doubles Power of Jet Aircraft." Popular Mechanics, February 1952, p. 116. Either way I am going to let this Gate Guardian have his pound or kilogram of flesh and leave his revert alone. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

PS> It is ok. As long as googlebooks is used for a reputable publication like PM and PS. That't a relief. I was going to loose a lot of work in heart beat and I though by this time I knew the rules, etc. --Jackehammond (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Quonset huts

• Hey Jack, you wanna see photos of abandoned/disused Quonset huts left to rot in Singapore? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Dave Sure would. I haven't seen any since Okinawa. I would like to show them to my wife. Thanks Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thing is, the photos I've taken shows them in various state of disuse (after being abandoned and left to rot) and are so dipilidated-looking that even I can't help but feel sad and depressed by just looking at them, though I'm still hopeful of finding one that's in mint condition here in Singapore. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Rollbacker authority - Why would anyone want it??????

Folks, Curiosity one of these days is going to get me in trouble, but I just had to know the facts on this subject. For the life of me I can not see why anyone but an administrator would want this authority, but I can not understand why would any sane John Q. editor would want it or even accept it? To me it seems like it would be like, you were handed a piece of dynamite not seeing the fuse and knowing when it was going to blow. With rollback authority, you have the rank with no authority or privilege. For myself, I like laying low on Wikipedia and hunting references in articles that lack them. And "maybe" editing a new article from time to time (ie although not much any more, because that is HARD WORK). Now That's Fun. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

B12 deficiency

Hi -

I just wanted to let you know that I reverted many of your edits about vitamin B12 deficiency across a few articles for a few reasons

1) I think you misunderstood the relationship between pernicious anemia and GAVE syndrome. The article you quote ( http://www.japi.org/september2004/CR-756.pdf) is a case report (not a secondary source, as is preferred for medical articles - please see WP:MEDRS) and also, the literature review in your article only states that GAVE is associated with pernicious anemia; this is different from cause and affect.

2) B12 deficiency can be caused by many things - sometimes oral replacement can reverse it (when due to poor dietary intake, for instance), sometimes not (as in pernicious anemia, for instance).

Cheers Wawot1 (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wawot!, You are totally incorrect. My wife who is a 40 years RN is getting the proper references And any over the counter medication will not stop much less reverse B12 deficiency. No matter what the magazine and other ads say. Mild B12 deficiency can be helped with doctor proscribed oral B12 after only the shot, but not before. The reason I know is it happened to me and also I have GAVE. It started in October and all the doctors of different specialties treated their specialty as as hammer and ever symptom as a nail. It took a neuroligist with a speciality in balance to say this is B12 deficiency. And basically any person with MD after their name should have tested for it. But it is to late now. The nerve damage is permanent and hopefully the B12 shots will arrest it -- ie not reverse it, I am stuck with a cane and was soon going to a walker. And all I have stated was told me by the last specialists. So in the first time on Wikipedia since 2009 I plan to revert your reversions. And you can -- and probably will -- revert back. And when I get the references I will revert again. Then it is dispute resolution. A first for me. And FYI on many of those pages that you reverted their are many unsourced statements. Look at the first paragraphs on B12 deficiency. If you were to revert or delete them all you would gut about 12 pages back to a stub article! Finally, if you get a moment please read the link at the top of my TALK page. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Guys: Please review WP:BRD and please take it to heart. That document is pretty much the essence of what it means to collaborate in this community. While it is not policy, willfully violating it is considered WP:DISRUPTIVE, and any willful disruption inevitably leads to a block.

I can understand the desire to present certain information when your personal-life situation is closely linked to the article topic, or if you have personal expertise in a topic. It is truly a challenge to keep the emotions at bay in such cases.

Keep in mind that all involved are trying to improve the article in good faith. Wawot1 had the courtesy to explain his reversion on your talk page rather than leaving it to the edit summary. Your first sentence is out of line, a personal attack, and I recommend you strike it. The third sentence attempts to lay on a guilt trip about the damaging effects of missing information on Wikipedia. This isn't a valid argument in a content dispute. Wikipedia makes no claims about any content being complete and correct (see WP:DISCLAIMER, in particular Wikipedia:General disclaimer and Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer). Anyone researching the subject might use Wikipedia as a guide for investigating the cited sources, but not the final word.

struck out sentences that no longer apply since Jackehammond has removed them. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As to the dispute itself, I'll say in general terms: if verifiable and reliable sources can be found to support a medical opinion, then there is no need to exclude it unless it's a fringe view that doesn't have the support of the medical community. Fringe views don't need to be excluded out of hand, but any minority viewpoints included should never be given WP:UNDUE weight in an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic, You are correct in everything you said. I deleted those sentences. In fact if you check the view history, I had already deleted another sentence after I posted it. My sincere apologizes to the original poster of the original message, Wawot!. While his rejection of the one reference I disagree with, I guess I got carried away because I was going to have the other references to back up the doctors statements (he said, I said I know is not acceptable) by the first of next week. But I know to never revert after the second revert. No one will have to worry about a revert war. My only question will I have to find a reference to disprove a negative -- ie the statement that over the counter B12 medications can help B12. And again, thanks for taking the time to review this. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Jackehammond - This is not a personal attack, and I don't doubt that you have GAVE syndrome and concurrent B12 deficiency. My objection are simply that 1) the reference you provided did not substantiate what you wrote and 2) it is true that for SOME people with vit B12 deficiency can be repleted with oral supplements. You're right that for CERTAIN TYPES of B12 deficiency, injections are needed, but it is not true as a blanket statement about B12 deficiency in general. I am also NOT saying that people with neurologic damage caused by B12 deficiency may not have residual problems even after their B12 levels are repleted.

I read the article you referenced, which said that there is an ASSOCIATION between GAVE syndrome and pernicious anemia, which isn't the same as saying that one causes the other. I stand by my assertion that your statements, referenced as they currently are, are misrepresentations of the original material and that the original paper is of lower quality than we'd like to see in medical articles. I won't revert your reverts, but ask that both you and other editors take a closer look at the paper and your edits.

Wawot1 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wawot1, First my most sincere apologizes. I was totally over the line and crossed the border. As to the article by physicians in India, which was a slide presentation about using radiation treatment for it. I am not a physician and can not sign up for the complete abstract. It would cost a small fortune anyway. But the first paragraph states In our series atrophic arthritis appears in most patients and it is important to realize that about three-quarters of these will also have pernicious anemia and vitamin B-12 deficiency. And it makes sense. An kind of B12 deficiency can not cause GAVE. But GAVE because is effects the lower stomach where the items needed to cause the intestines to absorb B12 is located, just as that weight loss stomach surgery -- ie which sews off a lot of the lower stomach -- cause many to have the same problem with B12 deficiency. As to the oral route. That is the next best (ie the nasal and IV route proven ineffective -- with the IV the kidneys throw it off to fast). But that requires a doctors prescription for those B12 pills. The over the counter are in two low a dose, and those with certain B12 deficiency is worst than useless as the intestines can not absorb the B12 no matter the dose. As to my edits. Are you going to have other editors just check and revert my edits or all unsouced material. You may disagree with that is not source. But at least it was sourced and the publication is not a fringe group. I am willing to abide by dispute resolution is you still disagree. And I hope you are too. Also, I again apologize for my hyper reaction. It was not even three toes over the line. It was all five toes and part of the foot. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jack - I'm not sure what you're looking at. The reference you gave is not a slide presentation, but a case series. I pasted the link to the (free) full article above - you don't have to pay for it.

In the discussion section of this paper, the only mention of pernicious anemia is in the paragraph:

"Gastric antral vascular ectasia syndrome is a rare entity. It is present in 3% of cirrhotics, whereas 30-40% of GAVE patients have portal hypertension. Classic noncirrhotic patient is middle-aged female with autoimmune disease or atrophic gastritis.1 Its association with scleroderma, pernicious anaemia, chronic renal failure, aortic stenosis, gastric carcinoma, bone marrow transplantation, Addison’s disease and antral mucosal prolapse is reported in the world literature."

As far as your comments about oral B12 repletion - please use precise language. My comments were about ORAL b12 repletion compared to parenteral (intramuscular injections). This says nothing about whether or not you need a prescription for the oral B12 repletion. I realized that we were both slightly wrong about it too - a quick google search brings up several reputable sources that oral B12 repletion is equivalent to intramuscular B12 repletion regardless of the cause of B12 deficiency. See, for instance -

http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/3/279.long

or

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0301/p979.html

Again, this doesn't mean that some people with neurologic problems resulting from B12 deficiency may not have some residual deficits after being repleted, it just means that repletion of the B12 levels in the blood can be achieved with either oral or intramuscular route.

Wawot1 (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wawot1, Please read whole rely before replying. I think you will be satisfied with the final conclusion.

I can not understand why you can't read this sentence for what it says and does not say ASSOCIATION it is important to realize that about three-quarters of these will also have pernicious anemia and vitamin B-12 deficiency. And the one other sentence I posted did state "only the shot" true. The the original meaning was, you can not go and buy over the counter supplements and bring it under control. So if you had only taken the part out about the shots -- ie even though still most physicians in the US disagree with other findings just as they do IV B12 (the kidneys throw it off). And the study does state I’m not going to repeat the slide. Which shows it was a presentation. And when presentation is giving % it is hard to believe it is a case study. Anyway I thank you for the links, but I never found a link to the full article you have in dispute. It is probably my eye sight. I think "this is the link that you are referring to" but that was not ["the one I was." And strangely just a glance at that article also caused me to also believe the article was from JAPI. Now I under stand why the word ASSOCIATED was so important in your counter debate and "case studies." We both had wrong articles. And unless I can get past the password screen, neither will know. CCS Publishing, publishes various physician hand books and updates. And it it probably a private database.

Now the good news. I was wrong in how I reacted to your first message. And in my reply I used what in American we call "under handed tactics." I reacted like one gentleman did to my posting of the official British RAF report rejecting the Bell P-39 fighter as unsuitable. He had a fixation on the love affair the Russians had with the P-39 flaws and all. I just back away, even though it left critical statements about the P-39 on that page. But what I did was worst. I used Wikipedia for my personal use. It does not matter if I am 100% right and you are 100% wrong. (Prepare yourself, here it comes.) To wit, there has to be a penalty if I have any Wikipedia ethics for that use, if I believe and have state that I am firm believer in the Wikipedia essay link that I keep at the top of my page; even when I archive My Talk page (And even my wife who has other references agrees I really crossed the line). Therefore, you can revert my edits I have made and with no future objections from me. Also I will not be taking these revert to dispute resolution. I firmly believe that on Wikipedia winning is not everything and because I do not want to become the type of editor I have seen give the administrators a case of various medical items near GAVE syndrome. And I am proud of the fact that since 2009 I have never even been close to warning of a block by administrators. I had a lot of editors at first in 2009, pulling their hair out saying they were going to the administrators, but that was because I was Wiki-Stupid. Unlike a lot of editors still, I know when to let it go. And I am truely sorry I caused you probably so much GAVE like symptoms. <GRIN> Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

. pregitist

Jack - thanks for the response, but I still think we're talking about different things! It's not about who's right and who's wrong, it's about accurately presenting the contents of reliable sources on Wikipedia articles. In your initial edits, you linked to "this article", not ["this article.". The JAPI paper is talking about ASSOCIATIONS, and is a case series. The CCS webpage does talk about an association, as you noted. The problem is that CCS doesn't appear to be a reliable source as defined by WP:MEDRS. Is it peer reviewed? Who wrote it? We can't just say, "it's some company that writes books for doctors and therefore is good enough". We can both find all sorts of claims on the internet (and people selling books about these claims) with little data, no data, or inaccurate data behind them. Is CCS one of these sites? I have no way of knowing, however if you do a PubMed search for "GAVE syndrome" and "Pernicious Anemia" or "Vitamin B12 deficiency", the only hit that you get is the JAPI paper that is linked to.

I hope that makes sense - not personal, not about winning/losing, just about being able to verify the things we write on wikipedia.

Cheers Wawot1 (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wawit1 I know it is not personal on you side. I was the one who made it personal. And I knew immediately when I could not find the author, medical association, etc. I could no longer use that ref. I got fooled into thinking it was JAPI article by a search I made using the title of the paper. That is why I was getting so confused. I was quoting one paper, and you were quoting the other, that unfortunately we thought was the same paper. I would like to ask a favor. There are some references other editors on the pages you are going to revert, that have no references, but are a given that any reasonable person would know. I hope, that just because you are reverting my entries you will not do a "fair is fair" and delete other entries that lack a proper reference. Also I hope you can find a way "with" the JAPI article, that there is some link between GAVE and B12. But if you can't that is understandable. Best Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)