Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:16, 21 April 2008

Archives

through 2007-12-31

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)

Medical sources for ASD articles

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° 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 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Time Measurement and Standards Topics template

I have no problems with edits to the template, including making the title bar match Misplaced Pages 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)

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 and my talkpage . Thanks. Fainites 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Any more?Fainites 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° 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 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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[REDACTED] 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 ? [REDACTED] 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)

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. --GrahamColm 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Suicidality and Antiepileptic Drugs

Eubulides, could you look at my note at Misplaced Pages 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° 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI notification

FYI, 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)

RAD

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

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)

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)

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)

Deja moo

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

Stimming

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

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)

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. 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)

Know this journal?

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

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)

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)

Chiropractic

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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 Misplaced Pages: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. 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)

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)

Thought you might be interested

- 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
		Many thanks for your help in getting RAD into a fit state to be seen. Fainites 19:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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."

In a 1999 review 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.

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."

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

Refs

1. ^ 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. ^ 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, Misplaced Pages 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)

Thank you

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

AIDS

Featured article, needing a minor tune-up. Interested? 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 Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/AIDS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 00:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

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

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. "

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 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[REDACTED] "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. "

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

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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° 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Nothing to see

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

sports chiro AfD

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_Chiropractic Mccready (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)