Jump to content

User talk:Opaque nociceptive neurons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Opaque nociceptive neurons, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xerostomia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graft (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Fat has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. The material appears to be substantially taken from: https://web.archive.org/web/20170719222441/http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/features/cholesterol-facts#1. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

@Velella: I think my edit in question complies with Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text. --Opaque nociceptive neurons (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It was a significant copy and paste edit which is not acceptable. In addition I have grave reservations about the reliability of the source .  Velella  Velella Talk   05:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Velella:WP:MEDPOP: Medical information resources such as WebMD and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information. Threfore, WebMD is acceptable. Secondly, I somewhat acknowledge that my use of quotation in such context might look strange and expedient as I chose to quote it without prior paraphrase in order to save my time. --Opaque nociceptive neurons (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammation

[edit]

On my talk page, you said:

Hello, thank you for pointing out here that The Crucial Roles of Inflammatory Mediators in Inflammation: A Review is not a good source. Whereas, I did notice that the source was entitled an enclosed Review mark indexed by PubMed. Would you please tell me more about identifying a better source? Thank you.
You can judge the quality of a source first by viewing its NLM catalog information which shows a) Vet Med is not Medline-indexed (if not, the journal has insufficient evidence of quality), b) it is published from India (generally low-quality journals), c) it is a veterinary journal (for the Inflammation article, a human review would be more suitable). You can search Google for the journal impact factor, shown here. An IF near zero is considered poor for a medical journal. You can browse these files below for more background on choosing good sources - see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDHOW for more. If you need further discussion, ask here on your page. Good luck. --Zefr (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr:I appreciate the knowledge you've imparted!! ^__^--Opaque nociceptive neurons (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS tutorials for new medical editors

[edit]
Wikiproject Medicine video guide for new medical editors

Wikiproject Medicine tutorial for new medical editors

Wikiproject Medicine resources summary

2017 Published review of medical content on Wikipedia

PDF for editing Wikipedia articles on Medicine

WP:MEDHOW: Useful Wikipedia tips for editing medical and general content

Allergo J Int

[edit]

@Zefr: Hi, the literature as follows was published by a non-Medline-indexed journal with near-zero impact factor has been widely cited 132 times, says Google. Is it a reliable medical source? Thank you!

  • Ring, Johannes; Beyer, Kirsten; Biedermann, Tilo; Bircher, Andreas; Duda, Dorothea; Fischer, Jörg; Friedrichs, Frank; Fuchs, Thomas; Gieler, Uwe; Jakob, Thilo; Klimek, Ludger; Lange, Lars; Merk, Hans F.; Niggemann, Bodo; Pfaar, Oliver; Przybilla, Bernhard; Ruëff, Franziska; Rietschel, Ernst; Schnadt, Sabine; Seifert, Roland; Sitter, Helmut; Varga, Eva-Maria; Worm, Margitta; Brockow, Knut (2014-05-09). "Guideline for acute therapy and management of anaphylaxis". Allergo Journal International. 23 (3). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 96–112. doi:10.1007/s40629-014-0009-1. ISSN 2197-0378. PMC 4479483. PMID 26120521.

--Opaque nociceptive neurons (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also this:

Hello. First, when you ping someone on your talk page, that is sufficient notification, i.e., a message on the other editor's talk page is unnecessary. Neither journal above is well-ranked by impact factor and is not Medline-indexed, so is probably a low-quality source to use in an article. I would give more credibility to the AJI publication because it is a guideline by several German-Swiss-Austrian clinical groups, so qualifies as WP:MEDSCI. But its low IF and absence from Medline indicate that worldwide use of that journal is not substantial (the authors may have tried publication in a more noteworthy journal, but perhaps were refused by editorial review). When checking source quality, you can also go to the search function of WP:CITEWATCH: if a journal appears there, then it likely has other problems, such as predatory practices (see disclaimer statement) which the Wikipedia medical community typically avoids. You can also bring up concerns for general discussion and feedback among veteran editors at WT:MED. --Zefr (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comprehensive response. First of all, I am sorry for notifying you two times in the first place. I did so because I mistook your subsequent edits following your response to Roundtheworld, Quinoa, Quinoa Revision as of 23:56,, Revision as of 00:02 for signs of unintentional neglect as it has been nearly 12 hours since I ping you on my talk page. Therefore, I decided to place a {{talk back}} on your talk page as a kind reminder. Next time, I would wait longer, probably 24-48 hours, before I place {{talk back}}. Apologize again for the disturbance. Last, I would like to thank you again for your patience and time. I wish we will have a nice week onwards! --Opaque nociceptive neurons (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikipedia:Harassment

[edit]

About the message user talk:Wolfch#Wikipedia:Harassment you sent. You didn't mentioned that user:Envisaging tier is one of these sock puppets of user:It's gonna be awesome. and both are blocked indefinitely.

In wikipedia:HOUND it mentions " Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". Using sock puppet is violation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I edit many articles because I try to revert edits from sock puppets. --Wolfch (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Opaque nociceptive neurons (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't look like a new Wikipedia user

[edit]

You know the Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Harassment, WP:CTDAPE and WP:HOUND, and you can use the edit history to see what I edited.

You don't look like a new Wikipedia user. I want to ask if you have used a different Wikipedia username before.

--Wolfch (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Wolfch:: I just did a little research. And I am shocked that your statement sounds quite similar to Ratherous on User_talk:Discern_irony where s/he said I wanted to ask if you have used a different Wikipedia username before...... If you have used different accounts before, pleaser disclose that in your user page. Again, you Wolfch has shown a strong interest in paying undue attention to everything pertaining to It's gonna be awesome and learned from those things to exert in the future like right now. Concerning your question, I would say I read before I act and edit Wikipedia and you better stop your WP:NOTHERE and respect every Wikipedian's time period.--Opaque nociceptive neurons (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

I request second CU and to be enforced from another Check User. I just found all of User:Wolfch's disruptive and vague accusations were satisfied by specific Check User who even dismissed DeltaQuad's request for more information. I'll stand behind the edit and would probably have reported Wolfch's repeatedly harassment targeting any Wikipedian regardless of the position. Furthermore, I just discovered that Check User B already blocked last alleged sock's IP for a month. It's impossible for the same one to immediately create another account right after the block. Taken together, I think I have strong reason to raise my doubts about the reliability of the Check User result. It seems that Check User B only took a minute or two to make judgement. If s/he only relied on Wolfch's vague accusation to judge, this is not correct IMO. @AGK, Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Mkdw, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, and Xeno:, per Wikipedia:CheckUser § CheckUser blocks:If you are concerned that a checkuser block has been made in error, you should refer the block promptly to the functionaries team, who will carefully review the checkuser evidence. Wikipedia:CheckUser § Complaints and misuse:This will in particular happen if checks are done routinely on editors without a serious motive to do so (links and proofs of bad behavior should be provided). I, therefore, demand the evidence for links and proofs of my bad behavior. Opaque nociceptive neurons (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As requested, I ran another CU check. It came back as a confirmed match. Talkpage access revoked to match master account. Yunshui 雲水 09:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Opaque_nociceptive_neurons&oldid=941226004"