Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:13, 25 July 2013

In response to your feedback

Well, to make a citation, you enter <ref> Your information here </ref>. In new articles, make sure you have a {{reflist}} on the bottom of the page, under "Notes" or "References" or whatever. (By the way, the {{reflist}} will only show in the edit window, not the article proper.) See here for more information. Have fun editing!

Agent 78787 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an application within Misplaced Pages, it's own wiki web page, where you enter (paste into) the web address (of the public access version of the research), answer a few basic questions, hit enter, and bingo all the "your information" stuff that goes between those ref's (< ref >/ ect) is populated automatically. It was the best way, but I lost the bookmark. Where is that application?32cllou (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a "Cite" toolbar at the top of the edit window which allows you to automatically generate the required wiki code.

You click one of the templates, e.g. "book", and fill in the details.

More information can be found in Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners or the citations tutorial (the below video will play best in Firefox or Chrome):

Hope this helps, Ariconte (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 32cllou, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

A minor note about your post on Talk:Comparison of birth control methods#IUD. It is preferred to add a new sections to talk page at the bottom, rather than the top. Then the comment sections are in chronological order, and it is easy to find new discussions. The "new section" button (at top of the page) gives you a new section in the expected place. I have taken the liberty of moving the section down to the bottom of the talk page. I also responded to your questions in that section on the talk page. Zodon (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse invitation

Hello! 32cllou, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Misplaced Pages. Please join us! ItsZippy 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your question has been answered!

I also replied with some more details on finding articles. Feel free to drop by the Teahouse with any other questions :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Misplaced Pages:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Misplaced Pages. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Consumer Reports

Hi 32cllou! I just wanted to say hi and I saw that you read Consumer Reports. Well, they are actually looking to fill a summer position for a Wikipedian in Residence at Consumer Reports. Here is a link, it might be something that interests you. See you around =) Sarah (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

Typically we paraphrase results rather than providing large quotes which can present copyright issues and or not the best per the WP:MOS. Thanks for joining us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Also the Cochrane summary you link to is from 2011 http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001877/screening-for-breast-cancer-with-mammography which is the same as what we already had http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21249649 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I used the same quote method shown to me by a long time editor Anthonyhcole. Please use the article talk not my or your page. Thanks.32cllou (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Words of encouragement

I had the first stuff I contributed to Misplaced Pages promptly removed. It took me some time to learn how things worked here and the norms of the community. Now I basically start with reviews articles in major journals that cover a topic broadly (discovered using pubmed and limiting my search to review articles from the last 5-10 years and than using google scholar to pull up the full text through my University.). I than read, paraphrase and add as I go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 04:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Callanecc (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mammography

Hi, regarding the conversation you're having with User:Jmh649 on Talk:Prostate-specific antigen and Talk:Mammography, I've included a link to the orginal talk page (PSA) for the benefit of other people looking at it (hope you don't mind). But other than that I don't plan to get involved, unless you want me too. Thanks Callanecc (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't mind, as the page you directed me to exactly what I needed to know. Thanks for the help. My mind was captured by this video http://freefromharm.org/videos/educational-inspiring-talks/philip-wollen-australian-philanthropist-former-vp-of-citibank-makes-blazing-animal-rights-speech/ as the primary moral imperative of our time. After mammo, breast cancer, and psa, global warming solutions are my next projects. Methane is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2, and has a half life of only about 7 years. So it's a critical stop gap. We only have 4 - 6 generations before higher life will cease to exist.32cllou (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mammography with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Adjkasi (discuss me | changes) 04:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

direct me to the edit please so I know the prb.32cllou (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Mammography with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Adjkasi (discuss me | changes) 04:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not make false claims and put old info into article. Your edits harm Misplaced Pages quality of updated Cochrane.32cllou (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a update edit replacing outdated info. Your edit replaces with wrong info per Cochrane.32cllou (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Quote

Can you add the exact text from the Cochrane paper that supports the text you added? All you have to do is add "Quote=" to the ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 05:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Your recent editing history at Mammography shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

cool info links

• Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

• Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

• News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

• In the news: Public relations on Misplaced Pages: friend or foe?

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

• Featured content: Heads up

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

• Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

32cllou (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

TED talks

These are not appropriate refs. Neither is the NYTs which you added in this edit . Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 01:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Also unsure why you are removing recent high quality review articles such as in this edit Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 01:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I was told by two editors responding to my Q in Teahouse that TED / Ornish WAS appropriate. I will provide the peer reviewed journal published research (note that TED is 2008) asap. I think the video is a better way to help users get the full value of the known facts. I didn't add the NYT, but have been told that it's OK too. I removed it because it's old 2011, same group updated in 2012 stronger statement.32cllou (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have questions regarding references for medical content please ask at WT:MED. You are going to need a review article rather than a peer reviewed article. These two are NOT the same. We do not typically link to videos. 2011 is not old. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

When you start using proper references you can replace it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Show me that TED is wiki unacceptalbe. Remove only the single diet line if you must.32cllou (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Was also replacing the 2010 BMJ review and removing the NYTs . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The USPSTF, 2012 says it all best updated research same but older bmj review.32cllou (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A new review does not automatically replace everything that came before it. We do prefer references from the last 5 years.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Have requested a further opinion for you Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Already have two saying I'm OK, you're wrong re TED. I don't mind not using the old bmj and NYT, since the 2012 USPSTF says all updated complete. Don't waste space with old stuff.32cllou (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Your recent editing history at Prostate cancer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not reverted any. I have made requested (by you and doc) changes using the most updated info. You are at risk of 3x.32cllou (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes you have just made your fourth revert at prostate cancer. And continue to remove high quality sources without consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 03:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a revert but change toward your request.32cllou (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Have reported your edits here Removing review articles from 2010 and 2011 was not what I had requested Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 03:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You said you wanted me to remove the nyt and TED, which I did. I made specific changes, not reverts. Looks like Yobol did do 3x reverts.32cllou (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop removing review articles

Such as you keep doing at prostate cancer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 00:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your removing of well sourced content is getting disruptive . If you continue you will be blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 10:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You either made a mistake, or are harassing me because the link you provided is when I removed the picture that is absolutely not representative of a women have a mammogram. The technician really smashes the breast. I'm surprised at your extreme miss representation. More than half of women complain at or after the procedure about PAIN. Your fraud subjects you to block.32cllou (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

STOP putting info in my talk that belongs in the article talk. Also harassment.32cllou (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop adding the Ted talks. You do not have consensus for their use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are essential

These include review articles and major medical textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. The content you have added has been removed partly for this reason. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that I can use primary research when secondary (NIH / NCI) initiates / makes the statement. In this case, once the NCI says there's some evidence in review that vegetables reduce incidence of cancers, I am free to use primary that goes deeper showing the petri dish test results maybe these vegetables are better than these ect. Note I didn't use that line of thinking in prostate cancer, where the NCI stated evidence is relatively weak. The BJC review is secondary to the NCI, since the NCI takes many such reviews and comes to independent conclusions. They are a review of the reviews.32cllou (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No you are not free to use primary research as you have been. Please get consensus at WT:MED before continuing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't talk on personal talk pages. Use the article talk and so you don't improperly generalize.32cllou (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not your "personal talk page". This is a space we at Misplaced Pages use to collaborate on improving content. You are free to remove my comments and this is verification that you have seen the concerns I have raised.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We have three talks going diet, healthy diet and prostate cancer. To fix we need address each separately, and hope to have other editors easily understand the issues in each of the three. Do not use this talk or yours.32cllou (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You continue to use primary sources in an attempt to refute secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:58, 16 July 2012

NCI is secondary as you noted before, and as I find in Wiki rules. I even left in that BJC review, though NCI is preferred per wiki. I will no longer reply in this talk only article talk.32cllou (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all of NCI is secondary. Only some of it is. Some of the NCI you link to is primary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Some" ?? Which is primary and I will not use. This is why we need to use article talk so we quickly identify issues.32cllou (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This one Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the NCI report update is not primary research they don't do any research in this review. It is secondary drawing from relevant primary to draw independent conclusions.32cllou (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to ask at WT:MED. They did not systematically review the evidence that is available regarding the topic at hand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've written on wtmed. This does systematically review (x2) http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/Policy_Report.pdf Looks like there's much needed work (not just diet) in Prostate Cancer, diet, and healthy diet.32cllou (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

haha. you are absolutely right. There is a terrible bias going on on wikipedia by small groups controling certain pages.

Klempner (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

fruits / vegetables

Regarding your edit to the image at Healthy diet ... I've started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:Healthy diet#First image caption. The problem is that, botanically, peppers and tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

An answer and another question at the Teahouse

Reply

I replied to your comments on my talk page. Thanks. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Personalized comments

A paid editor sorry no.

"Extreme conflict of interest" You mean because I added that vitamins appear to have no effect on prostate cancer based on this 2011 systematic review and meta analysis ?

Or is it my position on stating that the quality of research relating diet to prostate cancer risk is poor based this 2012 review which states "Current literature linking these nutrients to PCa is limited at best" Or is it that I am requesting page numbers so that I can verify your additions within a 517 page document? All I ask for is properly formatted high quality references. Is there evidence for calcium increase prostate cancer risk? Yes by the looks of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way while the "World Cancer Research Fund ; American Institute for Cancer" is not bad it is getting a little old being from 2007. While I have used it if newer high quality sources are available we should be using them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Also I wrote this summary

The Cochrane Collaboration states that the best quality evidence neither demonstrates a reduction in either cancer specific or all cause mortality from screening mammography. When less rigorous trials are added to the analysis there is a reduction in breast cancer specific mortality of 0.05% (a relative decrease of 15%). Screening results in a 30% increase in rates of over-diagnosis and over-treatment, resulting in the view that it is not clear whether mammography screening does more good or harm.

at the breast cancer article. Who do you think would pay to have this sort of content written? The manufacturers of mammography machines? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I am free to express my personal opinion, which is that you have a conflict of interest. Paid? Possibly only indirectly through over-treatment in your practice of medicine. Remember your reverts and refusal to include the 2012 cochrane? Also, guilt by association.32cllou (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Your recent editing history at Prostate cancer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Zad68 04:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Read the changes. I did not revert. I used Jmh's text and changed slightly as discussed in talk.32cllou (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm talking about edits that change the characterization of the evidence from "poor" to something else, as you did with article content sourced to the book Male Reproductive Cancers here and here, and with the article content sourced to PMID 23219353 here, here, here, and here. You should review the information at WP:EW to understand how Misplaced Pages counts a 'revert' for the purposes of edit-warring. Zad68 15:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You must not have compared the source information with Doc James's text. Doc's is synthesis at best. Mine is almost verbatim from the study. Here is Doc's and then my text: "The data on the relationship between diet and prostate cancer is poor." and (mine) "The incidence of prostate cancer is correlated with the consumption of the "Western-style" diet.

You also will find that Doc's text is not supported by the reference from the book. The text of the book says almost exactly opposite Doc's presentation.

To save you time, please glance at the study text and compare to Jmh's (Doc) and my text (again, I wrote "The incidence of prostate cancer is correlated with the consumption of the "Western-style" diet."):32cllou (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Abstract CONTEXT:

Prostate cancer (PCa) remains one of the most diagnosed malignancies in the world, correlating with regions where men consume more of a so-called Western-style diet. As such, there is much interest in understanding the role of lifestyle and diet on the incidence and progression of PCa. OBJECTIVE:

To provide a summary of published literature with regard to dietary macro- and micronutrients and PCa incidence and progression. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION:

A literature search was completed using the PubMed database for all studies published on diet and PCa in June 2012 or earlier. Primary literature and meta-analyses were given preference over other review articles when possible. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS:

The literature was reviewed on seven dietary components: carbohydrates, protein, fat and cholesterol, vegetables, vitamins and minerals, and phytochemicals. Current literature linking these nutrients to PCa is limited at best, but trends in the published data suggest consumption of carbohydrates, saturated and ω-6 fats, and certain vitamin supplements may promote PCa risk and progression. Conversely, consumption of many plant phytochemicals and ω-3 fatty acids seem to slow the risk and progression of the disease. All other nutrients seem to have no effect or data are inconclusive. A brief summary about the clinical implications of dietary interventions with respect to PCa prevention, treatment, and survivorship is provided. CONCLUSIONS:

Due to the number and heterogeneity of published studies investigating diet and PCa, it is difficult to determine what nutrients make up the perfect diet for the primary and secondary prevention of PCa. Because diets are made of multiple macro- and micronutrients, further prospective studies are warranted, particularly those investigating the relationship between whole foods instead of a single nutritional component..32cllou (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

PS Isn't there a supervisory group in Misplaced Pages to monitor for intentional misconduct?32cllou (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello,

I responded to your comments on my talk page there. I do want to let you know that I agree with the advice that other editors have offered about edit warring. The place to discuss and resolve ongoing disputes about article content is the talk page. Attempts to force your preferred version of an article by repeatedly editing to insert disputed content will probably lead to a block. You have to hammer out consensus language with other interested editors on the talk page. That's how Misplaced Pages works. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If you read the abstract (or book reference) and compared our (Jmh and mine) texts, you must have seen how harmful Doc's actions are for the integrity of content.

I guess there is no supervisory body to monitor intentional misconduct. Misplaced Pages evidently does not "work".  :

I'll find them for you if you ask, but Jmh has done many edits that reflect a conflict of interest and lack of respect for the secondary source references like Cochrane Collaboration (where he tried to block ANY inclusion of any of their most recent statements about mammography, which is to not recommend at any age).

Is there a way to have more (MANY) editors glace at a dispute?32cllou (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You can find out more about various forms of dispute resolution at WP:DR. In my experience, a process that involves many editors looking at a dispute is likely to result in acrimony and bitterness. I do not recommend it. Accordingly, unless you furnish irrefutable evidence, I recommend that you stop accusing other editors of "conflict of interest", "intentional misconduct", "collusion to mistreat!" and the like. Please read WP:AGF until you understand it deeply and accept it. You may also find it useful to read the essay WP:BOOMERANG. Thank you. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You must not have read the cited material and compared it to Jmh's sentence, which is the irrefutable evidence you recommend but do not read! Wiki is corrupt to the core.32cllou (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I told you previously that I don't make a practice of editing medical articles as I have no medical training. I have limited myself to offering behavioral suggestions and insights into how editors interact effectively. If you truly believe that the 6th most popular website in the world is "corrupt to the core", then please feel free to find another website to contribute to. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

When I first started writing, three different for profit agents (for Corporations) and one non-profit (Consumer Reports) solicited me by email to work FOR THEM. When I read articles where I have depth of knowledge, I find great bias in favor of financial interest over scholarly review. You are wrong to say in effect then just give up.32cllou (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Develop consensus for the changes you propose on the talk page. If you develop consensus your changes will be added. However if you continue to edit war you will be blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Need help Breast Cancer (mammography screening)

{{Help me}}32cllou (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw this at the Teahouse too, and I'm sure it'll get answered there in time. gwickwire_editing 19:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

WP:No personal attacks

Hi, your comments here about another editor contravene our policy. We take such contraventions very seriously and you might want to retract the comment before another editor deletes it. Any further breaches of policy could result in a block on your account, which will prevent you from editing for sometime. Graham Colm (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Refs are not needed in the lead as long as the content is supported by the body of the text and that text is referenced.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Take your comments only to the subject Talk.32cllou (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring (again)

Hi 32cllou, I'm sorry to see that it appears you're engaging in edit-warring behavior again at Cancer. There isn't consensus for your changes at this time and the proposed edits are being challenged by other editors. You need to please develop consensus for your changes at the article Talk page first, before reverting to them again. As you're already aware, edit-warring behavior (which often includes violating the WP:3RR rule) can result in a block. Zad68 02:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks again

In this edit the personal attack you made on another editor is not acceptable. You have been warned about this before. I suggest that you retract the accusation if you want to avoid having you editing privileges withdrawn. Graham Colm (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

4th revert

You have just hit your 4th revert in 24 hours. Would recommend you undue your last edit to cancer and get consensus at the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

1. "Breast Cancer: Screening". United States Preventive Services Task Force.