User talk:Ianupright

Hello Ianupright, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! --VS ^talk 08:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Magnesium

Hi there,

thanks for your additions to cardiac arrest reagrding magnesium. We will need to get good sources for this information, as Wikipedia works on reporting only on what is verifiable (not necessarily just what is true!). This is usually done via the inline referencing system. For more infomation, you might want to look at the following wikipedia pages:

If you know the references, but just want some help putting them in the article, feel free to give me a shout on my talk page

Regards Owain.davies 08:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia's policy on WP:Reliable sources and WP:Original research. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eby's page

Please do not use that page as a reference in medical articles per Wikipedia's policies on WP:Reliable sources and WP:Original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will second the warnings you've received regarding citing sources. Future reversions of the Clinical depression page will be considered vandalism, as you have violated the 3-revert rule, and will be dealt with accordingly. Thank you for your cooperation. --DashaKat 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.. On the clinical depression page, there was/is a reference to an abstract on Medline referring to an article written by Eby and Eby, called "Rapid recovery from major depression using magnesium treatment". Rather than a reference to the abstract on Medline, I replaced that reference to one containing the *full article*, as opposed to the abstract, to the *identical article*. How is a reference to the abstract of an article, so much better or more appropriate for Wikipedia than a reference to the full article itself? It has been claimed that I'm potentially vandalizing this page. Replacing a reference to an abstract of an article, to a reference to the identical article with it's full content, in my mind is a very far cry from being a vandal.. but I would like to get a good understanding as to why the abstract is more appopriate, because I don't see anywhere that this is the case. If people disagree with the original reference to this article entirely, as it being inappropriate, then this is a different matter.. but then in this case the reference to that article should have been removed, rather than reverted to a reference to the abstract of that same article. I'm merely replacing the abstract with the full article.

Eby's papers are in Medline, published in the journal of Medical Hypothesis, and claims are backed up by a significant amount of references to scientific journals and research. Please discuss here as how they are innapropriate or innacurate. Adding references to scientific papers is hardly vandalism, but if there is disagreement, then they should be discussed instead of stupidly reverting the pages and screaming "vandalisim"

source

your recent edits to the clinical depression page were removed for not having a source. If you can find a source, please put the material back in, with the source included. Don't worry, the material is not lost, you can find everything the typed by clicking on the "history" button at the top of the clinical depression page.

personally, I would love to see that information in the, so I'm hoping that you're able to find a source! warmly, Sethie 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More magnesium

Ian, I'm greatly concerned that you are promoting the beneficial effects of magnesium beyond what is recognised in mainstream medicine. I do not dispute the need to meet requirements, and neither do I dispute the major problems of magnesium deficiency, and I definitely do not dispute its utility in particular clinical settings (eclampsia, polymorphic tachycardias, atrial fibrillation, asthma).

Simply citing a PubMed abstract is not always enough to make a contribution sustainable. I strongly suggest you discuss these matters on the talk pages of articles you're contributing to. JFW | T@lk 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnesium again

The source you added to Tourette syndrome regarding magnesium[1] is not a reliable source; there is no reliably-sourced support for a magnesium theory in Tourette's (Bonnie's paper was a hypothesis, published as a hypothesis by a medical technician, and is as yet unproven and unstudied), so I've removed the edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]