BSatDrSocial

Welcome

Hello, BSatDrSocial, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username 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! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

• drsocial.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://spam.drsocial.org

Talkback

Hello, BSatDrSocial. You have new messages at Talk:List of social networking websites.
Message added 07:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

DrSocial

Hi again. As well as the comments I left on Talk:List of social networking websites, I assume that you are linked somehow with DrSocial because you have it in your username. You should probably read our guidelines on having a conflict of interest, as it will likely make your editing experience here much easier if you follow them. And if you have any questions about them, or about any other part of editing Wikipedia, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:List of social networking websites, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

I think you changed lots of older comments by accident, through search and replace. Don't worry about it though, everything has been restored. Please don't change your own comment either; you can add new links and info to the bottom of the section. Thanks, bonadea contributions talk 16:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DrSocial.org the first social networking site for doctors and patients.

Hello BSatDrSocial. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "DrSocial.org the first social networking site for doctors and patients.".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DrSocial.org the first social networking site for doctors and patients.}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

March 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 13:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Every edit of yours that I have reviewed, promotes yourself or your agenda. Wikipedia is not here for you to Right Great Wrongs™. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• For reviewing admins, see for example this: [1]. Note that the source is a predatory open access journal, the author of the paper is clearly this user, and the text is inappropriate for any primary source, let alone one written by the user himself and published in a pay-to-play journal instead of a legitimate peer-reviewed source. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I created a separate section as a reply to this. Are you denying "incompetent peer review" or are you solely inflamed by my use of the reference? There are more references below. BSatDrSocial (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BSatDrSocial (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia and Administrators Thank you kindly for granting me the opportunity to provide explanation and additional information regarding why I would ask for your consideration in unblocking me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention that extensive secondary references are needed to support one's claims on Wikipedia. Although I certainly listed my concise article published in an OMICS journal - that is frowned upon and since they have been banned so to speak from publishing quality scientific information I will not cite them again. I understand that it is important that Wikipedia contains a balanced and accurate overview of the topic of regulation, I am glad to provide the relevant additional references. Please consider that I have an upcoming publication of a letter in JAMA Oncology, a publication of a systematic review in the British Journal of Dermatology, a publication of a letter in the American Journal of Cardiology, two publications in the journal Cardiovascular Pathology, and an abstract published in the conference proceedings of the 18th International Federation of Association of Anatomists. Thus, I do not need the previously cited OMICS article to prove that I am an average researcher. What is particularly relevant to the motivation behind my postings, is that scientists are encouraged to contribute to the Wikipedia Community. According to the news from the American Medical Association, and the National Institutes of Health, scientists and physicians are supposed to contribute to Wikipedia, specifically with their areas of expertise. "In an effort to attract more expert contributors to the science and health pages of Wikipedia, the National Institutes of Health held a first-of-its kind crash course in Wikipedia culture for NIH-affiliated scientists."?UNIQ--nowiki-0000001C-QINU?1?UNIQ--nowiki-0000001D-QINU? Since there is robust literature encouraging the scientific community to contribute to Wikipedia, and I am a member of the scientific community, I kindly request that you reconsider the block in the light of my espoused reasons. ?UNIQ--nowiki-0000001F-QINU?2?UNIQ--nowiki-00000020-QINU? The block is no longer necessary because I understand that Wikipedia is not to be used to right great wrongs, and I should have been more objective in the Wikipedia article by replacing Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts with a state medical board. To identify specific examples of regulatory misconduct was unnecessary and I should have not included the sentence describing the misconduct about Dr. Adem. I now realize that in order to be complaint with the Wikipedia guidelines, I should have merely stated that were are numerous examples where state medical boards have failed to properly evaluate the quality of care by their licensees. Then, I should have cited the court case from Dr. Adem, Dr. Chaganti, Dr. Paskon from law.justia.com. I understand that you do not look favorably upon the journal Health Care Current Reviews and I understand that Jeffrey Beal lists it as a predatory journal. Therefore, I now realize that I should not cite it again in a Wikipedia article Below are the references that support my assertions about medical regulation. If you agree to reactivate my account, I will use the talk page first to propose well-composed changes to an article prior to making a change. Please also consider that one of my references regarding wrongful discipline, which was deleted was from the Nevada Supreme Court and they are generally considered to be a reputable source. FIRST TIER REFERENCES -Reputable courts each confirming most of that most of what I previously wrote in Wikipedia was unbiased. 1. Mishler v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 849 P. 2d 291 - Nev: Supreme Court 1993. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5539688962490335552. Accessed March 4, 2016. 2. Chaganti v. MO Bd. HA; WD77746; March 10, 2015. https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=84340 Accessed March 4, 2016. 3. Commission MAH. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Paskon, No. 02-1491 HA (Mar. 27, 2007). http://ahc.mo.gov/case/Paskon02-1491HA.JJK.doc. Accessed March 5, 2016. I agree to follow the Wikipedia customs including not citing a journal that is widely considered as predatory. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES - deviates from point, but included in case the aformentioned claims are considered to be my agenda and not my area of familiarity with the published knowledge in this area. 1. Chaudhry HJ, Gifford JD, Hengerer AS. Ensuring competency and professionalism through state medical licensing. JAMA. 2015 May 12;313(18):1791-2. 2. Commission MAH. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Adem, No. 12-0526 HA (Sept. 24, 2013). https://archive.org/details/medical-board-dysregulation Accessed December 04, 2015. 3. Commission MAH. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Adem, No. 12-0526 HA (Apr. 17, 2014). https://archive.org/details/MO-Healing-Arts-v-Adem Accessed December 04, 2015. 4. Arts MBoRftH. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Adem, 2010-002086 (Nov. 24, 2014). https://archive.org/details/SBRHA-v-Adem Accessed December 04, 2015. 2014. 5. Smith SC, Jr., Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW, Jr., Jacobs AK, Kern MJ, King SB, 3rd, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention--summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Circulation. 2006 Jan 3;113(1):156-75. 6. Division USDCEDOME. Antoine Adem, M.D v. Jefferson Memorial Hospital Association, (Nov. 13, 2012). http://mo.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20121113_0002014.EMO.htm/qx Accessed December 04, 2015. 2012. 7. Nishioka T, Amanullah AM, Luo H, Berglund H, Kim CJ, Nagai T, et al. Clinical validation of intravascular ultrasound imaging for assessment of coronary stenosis severity: comparison with stress myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999 Jun;33(7):1870-8. 8. Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Oct;13 Suppl 1:i85-90. 9. Johnson D, Chaudhry H. Medical Licensing and Discipline in America. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books; 2012. 10. Discipline. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved October 07, 2015, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discipline. 11. Berwick DM. Postgraduate education of physicians: professional self-regulation and external accountability. JAMA. 2015 May 12;313(18):1803-4. 12. Arts MBoRftH. Healing Arts News, (Apr. 1, 2015). http://pr.mo.gov/boards/healingarts/newsletters/2015-04-01.pdf Accessed December 04, 2015. 29(1): 1-20. ----------------- Sincerely, BSatDrSocial (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It is clear from your editing history that your purpose is to use Wikipedia to publicise your own work. Also, what you have posted here during the block that, far from indicating that you will not do so again, makes it apparent that you almost certainly will. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reply to Guy Number two

Dear Wikipedia Admins,

1. I do not need to use predatory journals to provide robust evidence illustrating the medical board's misconduct

2. I admit that I should have been more general and not called out the Missouri medical board specifically.

3. Of course I am the same author, Brett Snodgrass, my twitter is @brettsnodgrass1.

The Wikipedia admin Guy asserts that I am clearly the same author implying that I was trying to be deceptive. Of course I am the same author. BS are my initials and they are included in my Wikipedia name.

4. Furthermore, Guy's main criticism alleging abuse is that I used a predatory open access journal. The matter is moot because I have many other references that illustrate the previous incompetent peer review conducted by the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts. For example, Commissioner Dandamudi (the Judge) wrote that the State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts committed actions that were "unfathomable and deeply disturbing." I do not feel that I should be forced to create a new Wikipedia account to make future edits to the topic and as I previously said, I would use the talk page first, to get approval. In addition, I will follow not using Beal's list religiously on Wikipedia.

Additional Examples of incompetent medical regulation are well documented. See 4a. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (SBRHA) v. Surendra Chaganti URLs https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=84340 and http://ahc.mo.gov/case/Chaganti.10-0493ha.NTC.pdf

4b. SBRHA v. Paskon 2002-2007 (Dr. Paskon was later disciplined, but it was because of succesful federal review and not secondary to the review by the SBRHA. The SBRHA filed 137 claims against Dr. Seth Paskon and not one of them was correct. URL http://ahc.mo.gov/case/Paskon02-1491HA.JJK.doc

4c. SBRHA v. Antoine Adem http://168.166.15.111/DataTier/Documents/Repository/0/0/0/2/d88462a3-ec19-4493-9460-3d23619620d3.pdf

Is the Wikipedia admin Guy "denying incompetent peer review" or is she solely fixated on my publication in a "pay to publish" journal? I need not defend it because, it is irrelevant to the matter of incompetent peer review as I can simply cite the original sources.

I apologize for responding in a terse manner, but I am frustrated that admin has asserted I was trying to be deceptive.

Thank you for your consideration of my appeal. Sincerely, Brett Snodgrass. BSatDrSocial (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That was an example, not the sole reason. I have checked your edits. I find that most of them promote your off-wiki agenda, some promote your own writing, one set (deleted) promote your website. I note that you have no significant contributions in areas unrelated to your off-wiki agenda. Put bluntly, you appear to be here to use Wikipedia to further your own ends, rather than to try to build an encyclopaedia following the consensus view of mainstream sources. You are here to Right Great Wrongs. Wikipedia is not the place to do that. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Guy Three

Dear Wikipedia Admins,

Admin Guy asserts that I have promoted my self-interests. Unfortunately, I did not perform original research on the heart, I did not discover the connections between the coronary arteries and the heart chambers, nor did I discover the connections between the coronary veins and the heart chambers, Wearn* and Thebesius did respectively.

However, I did upload the first copy, from the national library of medicine, of Thebesius's original 1708 publication to the internet, and I asked Elsevier to make the source from the article http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002870333907115 to be open access. They kindly made the article open access because of its importance to scientific accuracy.

Admin Guy has made prejudicial accusations implying ulterior or purely self-interest agenda. Although I may have a confluence of interests, It would may be inaccurate to suggest that I have an agenda other than accurate information. Consider that I helped establish both of the aforementioned resources as open access on the internet, I would suggest that my agenda is establishing accuracy. If Admin Guy is able to article an agenda of mine that is not evidence-based, that is supported by the literature, then please provide an example - other than my previous suggestion to create a DrSocial webpage - which I tried to do once.

Dear Admin Guy 1. Please provide an example of my agenda that is not supported by the evidence.BSatDrSocial (talk)

• Vesalius identified the coronary-cameral connections and published it 1706, but Wearn provided the initial detailed histoanatomical study.

Dear Admin Guy, 1. Please provide an example of my agenda that is not supported by the evidence - that is not my area of knowledge and expertise.BSatDrSocial (talk)

Reply to Admin Watson

Dear Admin Watson and Wikipedia Administrators.

Thank you very much for clearly articulating your concern about my editing of Wikipedia - that I am here to cite myself. The solution is very simple - I will no longer cite or reference my work or the work of any of my affiliations. Thus, the block is no longer necessary, and I will make meaningful contributions to Wikipedia in the future.

Kind regards, BSatDrSocial (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That is only one aspect of the problem, though. Your use of predatory journals indicates a serious failure to properly appreciate WP:NPOV and other core policies. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Admin Guy - re: Predatory Journals

Dear Admin Guy,

Thank you very much for articulating your concern about a neutral point of view. I did cite one reference, two times, to an article published in a journal that is a member of the company that is on Beal's list. However, I also provided additional references to support my claims. Your concern is that using references on the list by Beal is an example of bias in writing. Thankfully, the solution is simple - I will not cite references to a group of journals or publishers which Beal asserts to be possibly predatory.

In summary, I will simply not cite anything that Beal writes could be possibly predatory. Please note, that he does not say that they are all predatory, but he does use the word possibly. Given the concern about the quality of these publications, I will not cite them on Wikipedia again... Unless of course he were to change his page and add every major medical journal. His blog, is, in and of itself, not peer reviewed, but you are relying on it to form the basis of which journals have peer review. What we have, is a situation with a high sensitivity for predatory journals, but the specificity is questionable. Given Wikipedia's NPOV, I will check Beal's list before including a reference in Wikipedia.

---

With regards to the claim of "predatory journals" I will not try to change your mind or argue that they are improving. However, one man, Beal, a librarian and scholar has created a list of journals which he condemns for trying to enter the publishing marketplace. Faculty1000 has a similar business model as Health Care: Current Reviews which is owned by OMICS, but Mr. Beal has not condemned them. Indeed, there was an interesting piece written in the Chronicles of Higher Education suggesting that predatory journals include those who exploit university professors for free labour and make billions.

A neutral point of view probably would not condemn every journal of a single publisher because some of the journals have done wrong. Should every state be punished because California broke the law, published inaccurate information, or committed fraud? Should every MP in the UK be punished because one MP told lies, wrote false information on their website?

According to the "pay to play" accusation - Faculty1000 may be considered a predatory journal.

The following is what I wrote to the Predatory Journal Facebook Page. OMICS, at least the Biomedical Journals Division is interested in improving the scholarly rigor of their publications. However, to condemn a journal to death that is interested in quality academic publishing is hardly scholarly to do, and to Beal's credit, he does provide an appeal section. By limiting competition in publishing, and exploiting the free labour of university professors, Elsevier and other reputable companies are able to charge outrageous prices to Universities. Elsevier has done much and I am thankful that they made Joseph Wearn's publication open access.

Some of the journals may not have many articles published, which is a good sign that they are not publishing an overabundance of misinformation. Parenthetically, some suggest that cheaper alternatives are needed than the standard journals. It almost appears as if there is sufficient information to wonder whether Elsevier buys your opinions. The reason for this irrational concern is that your objection to competition in the academic publishing arena is not helping scholars, but driving the cost incredibly higher. Instead of improving OMICS journals the condemnation of them and request for their death as an organization has only facilitated rising costs of journals. Therefore, I kindly ask, in light of the given information including the article- http://chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Change-Academic/134546/ - for you to reconsider the need to improve the quality of the articles you condemn.

Your efforts have prevented newer journals from raising the quality of their articles while aiding billionaire corporations to become rich by utilizing the free labor of university professors. Providing such a critical assessment of new journals helps billionaire corporations maintain a monopoly on academic medicine by preventing people from innovating higher quality and less expensive publications.

People may need to publish in standard journals - that you endorse - to highlight the harm the blog is causing to academic medicine. One of the things that I do commend you on is that you have an appeal section on your website, which is a sign of good scholarship and open-mindedness.

Please kindly consider the benefits of competition in academic publishing. Your concern is about the quality of research, and that is admirable, but there are journals interested in improving and they are condemned by your blog - and you have successfully rallied many of the troops to condemn them.

Unfortunately, money is what drives research in one way or another, and I am not certain that we should let the billionaire corporations be the only ones who provide access to the medical literature. Also, I think Elsevier is an excellent company, and I am grateful that they made the following article open access http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002870333907115. However, competition would help decrease their tremendous profit margin that is considerably gained by the free labor of others. Thank you kindly to those who read and consider what I, as well as the MIT professor, have written. BSatDrSocial (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)