User talk:TylerDurden8823

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A Barnstar for you[edit]

Bio barnstar2.png The Bio-star
For your contributions to Sepsis in particular recognition of your de-jargonification. MrBill3 (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bill! I also like the term de-jargonification :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


Hey Tyler,

I am an Osteopathic Medical Student and was thinking of making it a project to clean up the wikipedia pages about Osteopathic Medicine since they are kind of a mess. My goal was to give unbiased information from globally respected Osteopathic associations/organizations as well as published articles and books about Osteopathy that are current. Especially since Osteopathic Medicine is a respected profession, I was hoping to provide more reliable and accurate information about the philosophy and profession. I am a busy medical student, however, so I'll probably have to give up on this project if you undo all of the updates I am trying to make, which would be unfortunate. I understand that wikipedia is so great because people can collaborate and question each other, and I also realize that you are way more experienced in wiki editing than I am (and I appreciate all of the proofreading!!!). I just wanted to express what I am trying to do in this little corner of wikipedia and hope you understand that I am just trying to update the information so that it is as accurate and professional as it can be.

Thanks, brimwanthony Brimwanthony (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying about primary sources. I was under the impression that using those sources in order to define and provide a simple explanation would be ok since that shouldn't be contested information. It makes sense to me that the content that either supports the philosophy or slanders it would be re-organized in the effectiveness and criticism sections of the article. Doesn't that make sense? I don't think it's fair to start discrediting a profession in the introduction of the page without even properly defining what it is being discussed. I am in no way wanting to remove negative things about osteopathy; it is important to include all perspectives and as much wide breadth as possible, but as of now, the site is very much swayed to the pseudoscience end, which is pretty offensive and incorrect. Am I wrong in thinking that it is ok to use AOA, AACOM, etc. as sources for defining the profession? Brimwanthony (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Brim, the answer to your question is...yes and no. OMT is considered one aspect of the osteopathic medical profession and that of osteopathy as practiced by non-physician osteopaths outside of the United States. When considering this question, the better question to ask is if you can find such a definition in a secondary source (my money is on yes since I've seen definitions of OMM in such sources). The efficacy of OMT is considered controversial (and therefore most claims on the Wikipedia page (even of the most benign sort)) are best supported by the highest-quality references available. Sources like the American Osteopathic Association, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, etc. are primary in nature and are better used on a page like Osteopathic medicine in the United States for defining aspects of the profession there (though probably best to do this in conjunction with non-osteopathic sources as well).
These primary sources tend to have wording in them that may not be viewed as neutral by all editors on Wikipedia and such edits may view the use of sources that are so close to the topic as promotional in nature or as pushing a certain pro-osteopathic medicine point of view. This is why, when in doubt, it's best to stick to secondary sources that won't have their neutrality questioned. This is of even greater importance on pages of controversy such as OMT. In terms of the offense, I cannot comment one way or the other, but the bottom line is that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia has to reflect what the mainstream sources say and be balanced. From your comments, I understand you don't feel the lead section of the article is balanced and your point is definitely heard. This is still best discussed on the article's talk page where you can make compelling, well-reasoned arguments supported by high-quality evidence. Wikipedia is also a collaborative effort and editors often disagree with one another. One editor can be right and yet be outweighed by community consensus, so it's an imperfect system that is hopefully getting better over time. Wikipedia is not meant to be on the "cutting edge" of things either. So, in short, there's no rush when it comes to adding new content.


Hi Tyler,

I'm a psoriasis patient .. thank you for aome further explanation about this disease. It's really hard because of the itchy feelings that I had every single minute all day and with those criticisms I received from other people who don't care about what psoriasis patient feel in every single words they're saying. This information helps me a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelle rear (talkcontribs) 07:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chelle, I'm glad you like the article! Be well! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


For the great job you do simplifying Wikipedia and correcting my grammar and spelling :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks James :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Aortic rupture[edit]

Mr. Durden (great username by the way, one of my all time favorite movies), I'm wondering if there is a policy somewhere on wikipedia about using common names for medical terminology, like saying "Fast heart rate" as a symptom, rather than "Tachycardia (Fast heart rate)". I appreciate that we're not writing for a medical audience, but wikipedia is used by lots of medical professionals who know the difference between tachycardia and an arrhythmia, both of which can cause a fast heart rate. Anyway I don't feel strongly about this, mostly just curious if theres a policy. Thanks! BakerStMD T|C 18:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the username (yours is very cool as well) :) I'm honestly not sure if there is a definitive rule or policy about this. WP:MEDMOS does encourage defining jargon when first using it by putting an explanation in parentheses, but I usually think that ends up looking messy and instead like to avoid the jargon altogether and have it wikilinked if they wish to know more. I try to decrease medical jargon where possible in medical articles (renal --> kidney, hepatic --> liver, etc.) for those who may not understand the term (e.g., ESL or poor reading comprehension) and are too lazy (admittedly their problem) to click the wikilink and find out what it means. Tachycardia is really just a type of arrhythmia though anyway since sinus tachycardia would be considered an arrhythmia (just not the most worrisome one usually) but certainly there are other "fast heart rates" that are not sinus tachycardia. I think most medical professionals will get that fast heart rate is code for tachycardia. We've done this as well on topics of the utmost importance (e.g., sepsis) (which technically SIRS criteria is HR>90 so not technically tachycardic yet, but we're trying to keep it simple). If a medical professional reading the article is really confused, hopefully they will be equipped with the mental tools to sort out their own confusion (but again I think most will understand). I think the onus is on us to write as simply as possible for this encyclopedia and the highly educated will have an easier time figuring it out smaller details. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Acne vulgaris[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Acne vulgaris you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bluerasberry -- Bluerasberry (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, I really appreciate this Bluerasberry! If you have any concerns about the article, I'll just ask that you put the review on hold and give me a chance to make the necessary revisions so we don't have to do it all over again! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your contributions to dermatology-related articles. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kudos Core! Derm is definitely interesting! :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)