User talk:DrSamanthaBrooks

Welcome!

Hello, DrSamanthaBrooks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for helping us build a great free encyclopedia. We have five basic principles, but other than that, we advise that you be bold and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the help desk, and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to assist you.

Thanks again and congratulations on becoming a Wikipedian!

P.S. New discussion threads for you will appear at the bottom of this page.

"pathodysmorphia"

Hello, DrSamanthaBrooks, and thank you for your contributions!

I wanted to let you know it seems an article you worked on, "pathodysmorphia", is copied from another Wikipedia page, Pathodysmorphia. It's fine to do this as long as you provide the following information in the edit summary:

1. a link to the article you copied from
2. the date you copied it

You can do this now by editing the page, making any minor edit to the article, and adding the above information into the edit summary.

If you're still not sure how to fix the problem, please leave a message at the help desk. It's possible that I made a mistake, so feel free to remove the tag I placed on the article.

Thanks again for helping build the free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, most of which I have had to remove for multiple reasons. Please have a look at our page discussing conflict of interest, our medical sourcing guidelines, and our pages on what Wikipedia is not (a publisher of news) and WP:RECENTISM. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

--- Dear Sandy Georgia,

There is good neurobiological to suggest (prompting more research in this area) that this new term can be linked to anorexia nervosa, BDD and alexithymia. I am happy to agree that perhaps this new term should not be introduced in a prominent position on these other pages. However, I respectfully request that I can be allowed to add a link to my pathodysmorphia page in a less prominent position on these other pages?

I look forward to hearing from you,

Regards,

Samantha

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSamanthaBrooks (talk • contribs) 20:27, November 3, 2013

---

Thank you for your post on my talk: when I post to you, I also watchlist your page and will see your replies here. I prefer to keep conversations in one place. You can sign your entries by following them with four tildes ( ~~~~ ).

Wikipedia's medical sourcing policies (linked above) require secondary review sources for most medical sources. Additionally, our pages at WP:NOT and WP:RECENTISM explain other reasons for not using recent news in medical articles. Once your work has been subjected to independent review in secondary sources, it might find a place on Wikipedia.

There are also potential problems (original research and synthesis) in the article you created about your research at pathodysmorphia, explained at Talk:Pathodysmorphia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, so unless, for example, Sifneos discussed pathodysmorphia specifically, it is original research to say that he did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, The first time Pathodysmorphia is mentioned is in my article, cited at #1. It has, however, been cited in another recently published article, which I will find and add to this list. Will that then be ok? If there are two articles cited as discussing this new term? Warm wishes, Samantha

( ~~~~ ).

To sign your posts, just enter the four tildes (without the nowiki tags). We need independent mention to establish notability. Your article coined the term-- it is not independent. Only one other article or source anywhere I can find on the internet mentions the term, so it does not appear that notability is met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sandy,

Then, if my students and colleagues write some articles testing this concept and publish independently of my source article, will notability then be met? I would very much like to add Pathodysmorphia to wikipedia in the future, as it will really progress work in the field, and help to improve treatment.

Clarification that further publications will meet notability is much appreciated...

Regards,

137.158.153.206 (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion for the fastest way forward in the future is that, if additional sources appear, pop over to WT:MED (the talk page of the Medicine Project, where you will find numerous active knowledgeable editors), list the sources there, and ask for help in creating the article if they believe notability is met. (Concern about what and where your "students" would publish, and whether those would be reliable-- again, please see WP:MEDRS.) Consulting other editors at WT:MED will give you the best and fastest way forward in the event I'm not around for whatever reason, and other experienced editors can help you avoid the kind of original research that was in your first draft of pathodysmorphia.

Of course, I'm considerably troubled by the notion that you would get your students or colleagues to write about something so it can be included in Wikipedia, but I can't control what goes on in the world of research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sandy Georgia,

You appear not to know how high level research works (do try to read one of my 30 publications since 2010) or understand that it is commonplace for assistant professors to supervise MSc and PhD students to conduct original research (e.g. to test a concept such as Pathodysmorphia, which has received considerable interest in high profile international neuroscience conferences since 2010, hence my desire to finally introduce it to WIkipedia). My research over the last 3 years has attracted $1 million, and funds high quality brain imaging research (my own, and my students -- NOT in inverted commas!), examining neural correlates in eating disorders and addiction.

I find your tone extremely unprofessional -- while I am perhaps premature in sending Pathodysmorphia as a concept to Wikipedia at this stage, I find it laughable that you can be so mistaken to imply that I would simply "...get [my] students or colleagues to write about something so that it can be included in Wikipedia, but I can't control what goes on in the world of research". This statement is highly detrimental to your "profession", as you have now discouraged me from contributing any of my ideas/research findings/treatment interventions to Wikipedia in future. A point of note: Science News published an article on the Anorexic Brain in July 2013, quoting my own and my esteemed colleagues (and students) research into eating disorders, which also went out as a highly popular podcast in the US.

Unfortunately, your bullish attitude has probably set back this field of research a few years, and prevented many an undergraduate student (who unfortunately spend more time searching WIkipedia than they do hardcore medical databases) from sparking an interest in the concept of 'pathodysmorphia'. My post was not fuelled by self-interest, but rather, to encourage students to come to do brain imaging research to examine this. Sadly, I will not attempt to share with Wikipedia again, instead I will continue to use my time to write high quality journal articles.

You say "Consulting other editors at WT:MED will give you the best and fastest way forward in the event I'm not around for whatever reason". I can certainly imagine numerous reasons why you would not be around at Wikipedia for too much longer -- I suggest you polish your customer service skills before you damage the ethos of Wikipedia entirely.

I would like to end my note on a positive, and thank you for your constructive criticism. I can only apologise for my error -- I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, but I will follow the WT:MED in future.

Very best,

DrSamanthaBrooks (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Best of luck in your research and endeavors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Dr Brooks, I read your comments at the deletion discussion for the article you created and then your comments here and was compelled to add a note of my own. At first glance, you seem to have misunderstood the purpose, function and functionality of Wikipedia. For those who seek to edit Wikipedia there are myriad introductions, guidelines, helpful hints, instructions, policies and recommendations, all of which are linked to on the <-- left hand side of every page. While "jumping in" and contributing without reading that basic introductory material is admirable, it seems immediately contrary to the nature of someone in the position you claim to hold (and please consider that just as you have no way of knowing who I am, I also have no way of verifying who you are so a "claim" it remains). You should keep in mind that when calling someone "unprofessional" for suggesting you read guidelines, they might well think the same of you for not having done so in the first place. As much as it might not sit well with academics, the reality is that Wikipedia does discourage you from "contributing any of [your] ideas/research findings/treatment interventions to Wikipedia in future". Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a place for "sparking an interest in the concept of pathodysmorphia" - see WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTPROMO. You should be encouraged to "write high quality journal articles". Doing so will raise the profile of the term/concept you coined, encourage further research and hopefully allow the term to become common-use enough so that it is notable (the standard by which things are included in Wikipedia). The unfortunate reality (though you seem to have taken Sandy's recitation of policy in the worst possible way) is that whether you encourage them to do so or not, your students and colleagues likely wouldn't be considered independent enough (from you) for their research to be considered a reliable source of information for the subject at hand. For what it's worth, I suggest you take a step back, have a read of some basic guidelines and consider what it is that you are trying to contribute here and the best way of doing so. The alternative is like trying to drive a car without knowing which end should be moving forward. Stalwart111 23:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Stalwart111, as we can see that DrBrooks is upset with me. After several discussions here and on article talk, it appeared that AFD was the only option, Prod was out. I continue to offer to DrBrooks to help her if other sources become available in the future, and if I'm still an active editor, but WT:MED will always be there if she wants help in the future. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)