User talk:Mihai cartoaje

Hi all. Leave me a message.

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°^Talk 08:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have restored the text. I have requested third-party opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. Colin°^Talk 10:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia.

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.[1] 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)[reply]

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 Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[2] to Schizophrenia

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Glen 11:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried discussing at first, but some of the accounts that want violence statistics in the article keep making personal attacks.

And I have discussed the disputed change on the talk page: [3].

Please stop being silly adding a clearly unwelcome POV tag. This is nothing but edit warring, for which I've blocked you for 8h William M. Connolley 19:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schizophrenia

I have left a positive comment as an outside view on the RfC. To deal with the sockpuppet-situation, maybe a request for user conduct (or should I say users conduct) on DPeterson will work to eliminate the sock-puppets?

It might be a good idea if you respond to the current RfC — just give a totally honest account on how you view the situation. --Grace E. Dougle 11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am presently taking a break from editing Wikipedia in order to motivate myself to catch up with other things I have to do.

I have not been blocked; it was only a prank.

You are a good kind person

bless you for your kindnesses.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Kiwi (talk • contribs) 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oops

I must've had a faulty brainwave somehow. Still, I think the rest of my comment makes sense. If we were to blank it, the warnings would be harder to see. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Glad everyone got to know the truth. I would still volunteer for a checkuser if anyone has doubts.

WP:MEDRS disussion

Dear Mihai, I noticed your recent edit to the WP:MEDRS. The consensus policy on Wikipedia (WP:CONS) seems to be much deprecated. What everybody is using instead is WP:SILENCE essay: "Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when you try to build on it. In wiki-editing, it is difficult to get positive affirmation for your edits. (Disaffirmation comes with a revert.)" Thus, if you want to have your views heard, you have to revert the guideline status. Please also see my recent edit [4] and weigh in if I did not reflect your point of view correctly. Paul Gene (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I helped write WP:SILENCE, and it is a key part of how we measure consensus. Saying that silence-is-consensus is replacing consensus is like saying that cars are being replaced by tires (After all, these days, tires outnumber automobiles 4-to-1 on our roads! :-P).

Some people misinterpret it though (just like they misinterpret everything really).

In the mean time, I've asked you to please expand on your position on WT:MEDRS? What are your issues with newspapers not being a reliable source, please? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the 4 questions at the top of the talk page? They've been most helpful in determining consensus. If you have some time, would you care to try answering them? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya! Are you still around? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

Why do you remove my notices instead of replying and explaining why you are warning me for no reason? I'm sorry but I'd like to know. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom comment

What does that ArbCom have to do with Casliber and Peter Breggin? -- Fyslee (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber has voted in a motion. Peter Breggin is a psychiatrist who has criticised over-prescription and over-forcing of psychiatric drugs. You can see his website at | breggin.com .

Casliber is a psychiatrist. Most psychiatrists don't want to have to argue in court that a person is dangerous, so they have been pushing for laws that would allow them to forcibly commit people only for disagreeing with them. Please see: [5]. And there was the proposal in 1993 that people should be sentenced to forced drugging for the rest of their lives without the possibility of being put on a lighter program (please see the videotape "Hospital without Walls", still available for purchase on the internet.) It follows that they see Breggin as standing in their way. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty distant COI, and I don't really see how any of Casliber's comments or editing shows such a COI. Even if he were to share such a POV, that isn't the same as a COI. It would have to be much closer. The point is now moot anyway, since the case is closed and his vote wouldn't have made a difference. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this a fairly tangential link, and I can state I too am concerned about inappropriate prescribing of medication. Also, any psychiatrist here in Australia who detains someone against their will in a hospital has to argue the case in front of a magistrate or tribunal. I have not read the Breggin website and will have a look, thanks for the link. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting messages

You should, in general, not delete messages left on your talk page. Xanthoxyl (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your talk page history, and you seem to be deleting comments left by other editors who disagree with your actions/opinions. I thought that, in general, this was frowned upon and considered bad taste.ChillyMD (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine

Could I ask you to discuss your perennial edit on Talk:Medicine before adding the same content to the article again? Most commentators on the talkpage seem to think that your addition is not suitable. JFW | T@lk 00:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please respond to my arguments on Talk:Medicine before making any further attempts to insert your content. I am faced with the decision of asking for the page to be protected. JFW | T@lk 23:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical malpractice

Multiple editors[6][7] have agreed that the link you keep adding is not a reliable source, and is very likely a violation of WP:SPAM. It was discussed at WP:RSN, and everyone other than you agreed that it was inappropriate. Yet you continue to edit-war to insert, and then have the gall to threaten me with a block over the fact that I made a consensus edit supported by a 3-1 margin. Why are you so intent on adding this particular link rather than something that is a reliable source? Please self-revert. THF (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, editors are not allowed to use Twinkle to edit-war. I find that you don't discuss enough. I added your exception for minors. When you reverted me, you even removed the exception for minors that you brought up on the talk page. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I opened the discussion on RSN. Everyone disagreed with you. You made no effort to rebut Nbauman's extensive analysis of why the spamlink was not RS, or of Ohnoitsjamie's characterization of the link as spam. Instead you added the link. How can you say I'm the one who doesn't discuss enough? (Did you notice that you undid two other editors' edits when you reverted?) Are you going to remove the non-RS link? THF (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]