| Revision as of 00:10, 15 October 2006 editGinkgo100 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,243 edits schizophrenia← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:10, 15 October 2006 edit undoGinkgo100 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,243 edits →=Continued deletions from []: fix headerNext edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| Have you withdrawn from mediation, and/or accepted that the section should be included? Thanks. - ] 01:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | Have you withdrawn from mediation, and/or accepted that the section should be included? Thanks. - ] 01:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==Continued deletions from ]= | ==Continued deletions from ]== | ||
| Your behavior regarding the article ] is getting harder and harder to see as ]. You failed to complete ''two'' mediations and to participate in an RfC on the issue of the "Violence" section, and in light of that your continued insistence in making these controversial changes appears unseemly. | Your behavior regarding the article ] is getting harder and harder to see as ]. You failed to complete ''two'' mediations and to participate in an RfC on the issue of the "Violence" section, and in light of that your continued insistence in making these controversial changes appears unseemly. | ||
Revision as of 00:10, 15 October 2006
Hi y-all!
Leave me a message.
I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Mihai cartoaje. --Steve Ballmer 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Word
Please stop removing Microsoft Word from the Word page. The listing of MS Word there does not serve as an advertisement for Microsoft Word, nor even as an acknowledgment of it being dominant as a word processor. Actually, I don't even use MS Word, I (and everybody at the Talk:Word page except you) just want to reflect that many people say Word and mean Microsoft Word, and having the link here is useful for our goal of bulding an encyclopedia. Regards, Kusma (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- In an attempt at "word processor fairness", I have just added OpenOffice.org Writer to the Writer page. That seems to me a better way of adding other word processors. Kusma (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Window (disambiguation)
I noticed that you alphabetised the entries of Window (disambiguation). Keep in mind that it can be useful for readers to have to most likely entries first in a list, rather than entries listed alphabetically.--Commander Keane 07:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Mediation cabal
Salut, pot sa te ajut cu problema tau? - FrancisTyers 09:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, thanks. It's problema ta because problema is feminine. --Mihai cartoaje 12:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction :) - FrancisTyers 10:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Epilepsy
I have removed some of your edits to Epilepsy and discussed the changes on the Talk page. If you wish to discuss this, please use my talk page or the epilepsy one. I hope this doesn't discourage you from making future contributions. BTW: when including references, please use the new ref tags in keeping with the other references. That ensures the reference-numbering works and keeps the article consistent. Thanks. Colin Harkness° 08:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you have restored the text. I have requested third-party opinions on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. Colin Harkness° 10:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Mihai cartoaje,
- I find that it's great that you're looking at the primary literature and making an effort to understand it. Also, I think it's great that you're referencing the statements you add to Misplaced Pages.
- Those things said, I think you've been distracted, at times, by a few smaller studies and studies done on animals. Proving, in medicine, that some thing works is, typically, a long an arduous process. One or two small studies in the grand scheme of things don't have a lot of weight as sometimes the results were by chance -- Type I error, or there were methodological problems. Animal studies sometimes are misleading. Even with a lot of testing things go wrong -- thalidomide is an example of that.
- I think you need to change your approach a little bit. Consider collections such as Bandolier and the Cochrane Collaboration. Also, I suggest you read a bit about epidemiology-- Bradford Hill's paper The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? I think is classic-- and I think it explains how a lot of the thinking is done in medicine. If you're new to an area I think a textbook or review article is the place to start. If you cite the primary literature--evaluate whether it is good (e.g. Is it is a randomized controlled trial? If it isn't randomized is there a control? Was the analysis done on an intention to treat basis?)
- I hope that you receive my comments as being constructive and look forward to your future contributions. Nephron T|C 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Schizophrenia
I agree with you on the removal of the violence section of schizophrenia, as it doesn't seem very nessicary. But I do think it's rather accurate... since I'm diagnosed with schizophrenia and can personally say that I'm almost never violent.
I see that a mediation has been filed on the dispute, anything I can help with to achieve compromise with both parties? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Mihai, are you still in mediation? I haven't heard back from you in a few days. Thanks. - MSTCrow 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you withdrawn from mediation, and/or accepted that the section should be included? Thanks. - MSTCrow 01:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Continued deletions from Schizophrenia
Your behavior regarding the article schizophrenia is getting harder and harder to see as good faith efforts. You failed to complete two mediations and to participate in an RfC on the issue of the "Violence" section, and in light of that your continued insistence in making these controversial changes appears unseemly.
If you want this section out of the article, then you must have consensus to that effect first. There is no other way. Unilaterally deleting a section of the article, and ignoring or brushing off good faith attempts to develop the direction that article is going in, is not an effective way to build an encyclopedia. --Ginkgo100 00:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)