Soomeh

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Soomeh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 04:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Stroke

Hello, Mr Mesallum. I'm just dropping a note to explain why I removed your contribution from stroke. I agree that the concept of venous revascularisation is interesting and might benefit wider application. However, it is evident from your contributions that this is an experimental treatment that has not been widely studied. As a result, I cannot presently support its inclusion in the stroke article. Please discuss the issue on Talk:Stroke if you think I am wrong. JFW | T@lk 11:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is also very poor form to use WP:UNDO without clarifying your use of undo in the edit summary. I gave some good explanations in my edit summaries and in my message above. JFW | T@lk 11:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also reverted your recent edits, Soomeh. I cannot allow information to be added to articles under WikiProject Medicine if the information added doesn't comply with the following:

• Use a reliable source such as a peer-reviewed journal, many can be found under PubMed.
• There has been significant medical consensus by health professionals and researchers that the information given is correct or used widely. Your treatment information regarding venous revascularisation has not yet had such consensus, to my knowledge.

Please do not readd the information to the page in concern, Stroke, without first discussing the topic further on the talk page. Kind regards—CycloneNimrod^T@lk? 11:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Arterial Venous switching

It's great to hear that you are a physician, and I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I'll also clarify that I am not an administrator, I'm just another user like you. Even so, I have to abide by the rules that WikiProject Medicine have laid out.

You must understand that information cannot be added to our Wikipedia articles if it constitutes original research, i.e. research which has not yet been peer-reviewed through a source we consider reliable such as medical journals. If you can find such a source, you are welcome, in my opinion, to add the treatment to the article and state that it is experimental and that it is controversial. So far, this treatment has recieved little medical consensus and therefore the public should not be informed that is it a treatment option.

Please review the following topics and you may understand why we cannot include the information yet:

• Reliable sources in Medicine
• Reliable sources in general
• WikiProject Medicine
• No original research

Many thanks, feel free to contact me again—CycloneNimrod^T@lk? 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning

You have been warned repeatedly by several individuals not to add information on arteriovenous switching to stroke. You have apparently ignored those warnings. Please review guidelines on medically reliable sources before adding the information yet again. Patents and patent applications are not suitable sources for medical articles on wikipedia. If the technology is tested and reported in a peer-reviewed journal, which would be considered a medically reliable sources, then it is suitable for inclusion on the stroke page. Until then, it is undue weight to keep inserting information on a device that is prospective and has not been tested or reported in a peer-reviewed journal. Currently the information amounts to little more than spamming and advertisement for the patents and repeated insertion of the information can result in a blocking of your account and the revocation of your editing privileges. If you are looking for a means to insert the information, I suggest you bring it up at the medicine wikiproject rather than repeatedly inserting the information against WP:CONSENSUS. This is a third-level warning, one more warning will result in your account being reported at the vandalism noticeboard and hence a block. WLU (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother reading your lengthy post to my talk page. If you have medically reliable sources, of which a patent is not, add them to the page. Otherwise, you are wasting my time trying to convince me and no amount of original research can make up for a dearth of sources. Medical pages require high-quality sourcing, not promotion of untested ideas. Wikipedia works with what is verifiable, not what is true, and you can't properly verify with patents. WLU (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Let medical research determine if the arterial venous switching is a valid approach or not." - you placed this on my talk page. My problem is that there is no medical research to determine if it is valid. If there was, I would have no problem. But there's no medical articles, so there is no defensible reason to place information about it on the page. Please read the policies and guidelines you are being pointed towards. Wikipedia is editable by anyone, but that doesn't mean that anything can be placed on the pages. You have the resources you need, and you will not convince any other editors via blind assertions. WLU (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a "Plethora" of medical research on the validity of "Retrograde Cerebral Perfusion". You just don't know it. The issue will need you to READ MORE! before you give me a warning. I am warning you that your inability to show acceptable level of "knowledge" about a subject should forbid you from making any comments or actions in relation to said subject.

Soomeh (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:PROVEIT. It is not up to the deleting editor to justify the removal of unsourced content; it is up to the inserting editor to provide reliable sources that justify the information. For medical articles, the only reliable sources are found in peer-reviewed journal articles, medical textbooks, and statements by major governing bodies. If retrograde perfusions is only discussed in patents and not in medical journals, you simply can not add it to the page. That's it. There's no flexibility, there's no 'rudeness', your edits are not in compliance with wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Period. Edits are not maintained by insisting you are correct, you must verify the information through citations. I can't make this any clearer, and you are free to feel that this is a horrible injustice, but it is what it is.

If, as you say, there is a "plethora" of medical research on retrograde perfusion, then you should have no problem citing it. I am certainly not going to spend my time on a topic I am uninterested in when you are claiming expertise. Demonstrate it, by finding and citing sources. WLU (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Emailing

I read my talkpage. You emailed me not just once but three times. You have left rude messages on the pages of other editors who have taken the trouble of explaining to you why your additions to stroke, while possibly of future interest, were not presently suitable for inclusion. Whether you're a board-certified MD or not, you cannot claim space on Wikipedia, especially when you are unwilling to collaborate on the most basic level.

Things will change when phase III studies on your technique have been conducted. Once that is the case, you are by all means free to suggest its inclusion on Talk:Stroke, where people without a conflict of interest will proceed to judge it on its merits. You can reply to my message here, or leave a rejoinder on my talkpage, but stop emailing me unless the matter is personal or sensitive. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 20:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I left messages in responce to the "rude" deletion of my edit by other editors who try to explain to me something, they lack enough knowledge on. The concept of "Retrograde Cerebral Perfusion" is a very valid medical treatment to brain ischemia and is currently used in many fields including "cardiac surgery/CPB". Before an editor assumes the position of the "teacher" ans start spreading "incorrect information" they can ask experts for help or get some self education to be on the level of discussion, leave alone editing. So, I advise you and other editors who "concluded that the concept of "Venous or retrograde perfusion" is a "conflict of interest" or "commercial", to read more on the subject, before editing me. I have spent enough time and effort on "Stroke" and I know what I am talking about, regardless of being a physician or not and regardless of being "Board Certified" or not. I hope you can do the same and READ MORE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soomeh (talk • contribs)

RE: Your recent comments on my talk page

You have been doing some serious misquoting on all of our behalves (Cyclonenim, JFW etc) and using some straw man arguments. I don't think you fully understand our position.

We have no issue with the treatment, I fully support the experimental treatment (i.e. not yet in Phase III trials, not yet verified by peers (i.e. consensus) etc); however, it is simply experimental. Compare your treatment to warfarin therapy or neurosurgical investigations in haemorrhagic stroke—is your's as well documented as these? Do other physicians know of your treatment as much as they know of these therapies? If not, it's unlikely that it's undergone the necessary validation and verification that treatments need before being recommended to patients.

This is the last I will say on the matter, we have explained to you in simple terms why you cannot add this information yet. It may be suitable for inclusion at a later date when trials have advanced and studies are more numerous and reliable. Consensus has not been achieved with the current studies, however the consensus here at Wikipedia is that this information is not suitable for inclusion. Please do not contact me again until you have resolved our concerns. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 14:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

- as an uninvolved admin, please listen to the good advice being given to you by experienced editors. Please take this as an Assume Good Faith warning, because further editor attacks will result in you being blocked however much of an expert you are. It is the responsibility of an editor adding information that might be challenged to backup up statements made in articles. i.e. it is your responsibility to provide WP:Verification as "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source" and to do so one must WP:Cite from WP:Reliable sources. The policy of WP:No original research states "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source". Of course new editors may be unfamiliar with our guidelines and policies, but attack other editors by suggesting that they are ignorant [1] and your time here will be cut short.

Please note that as an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia does not aspire to Scientific Point Of View (as Wikipedia is not a medical textbook) but rather Neutral Point Of View - these are policies and if you cannot do this then your edits will I'm afraid tend to be removed on sight. Hence current accepted knowledge is presented rather than what is just appearing over the horizon as some new claimed "truth" - when it has drifted closer in and been caught in the net of primary-source peer-review publications and secondary-source textbooks it will plain for all to see, but until then we wait for WP:there is no deadline as not all sightings of land prove to be a continent rather than just an outcrop of interesting rocks. None of the removal of this description should be seen as direct comment or criticism on the technique itself - that is not the role of encyclopaedia editors who should seek only to reflect current published & retrogradely-accepted information, and as yet that seems something a little way off for this quite amazing and intriguing suggested procedure. So I wish you well in your research, and please do give us a heads-up at WT:MED when the studies hit publication and we shall be delighted to see if & how the Stroke article then needs updating (but such edits should not be directly undertaken yourself as per WP:Conflict of interest guideline). Meanwhile if you can help out with other aspects of the Stroke article or indeed any other medical topics we warmly look forward to your help (if you need any asssistance in adding citation markup just ask at the relevant article's talk page or come to WT:MED). David Ruben ^Talk 16:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)