User talk:Jagra

This user is interested in, and may have gone off Sailing.

References

To do what you want to do see WP:CITE. If you need specific help, or if you would like me to do it for you, feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Random ^{Say it here!} 03:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I misunderstood what you meant. To make a references list in the bottom of an article add the following {{reflist}} to a reference section. The wikipedian who originally answered that question already did it for you. --Random ^{Say it here!} 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw your question on the help desk. Here's the quote from Wikipedia's guidelines: 11 This wikipedia guideline on editing style states

English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it. VK35 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your message, I was merely citing the wikipedia policy. If you carefully consider what you are doing and genuinely believe that you are doing the best and generally accepted action, then you are probably ok. VK35 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Herpes zoster - comments from an uninvolved admin.

First, I strongly suggest you see WP:NPOV's undue weight clause and take a look also at WP:RS and WP:V. Second, slow revert wars are unacceptable. JoshuaZ 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree, have read your points and learnt, check the pot not just the kettle, as I have not reverted any edit at this time, slow war accussations are out of order.Jagra 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't just show up at an article and revert back to a previous version as you did at H. zoster. Especially do no not do so when there is was a prior consensus not to have your edits and there was concern about NPOV and RS. Such behavior is time consuming and disruptive. JoshuaZ 02:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please next time check the article discussion page, as I have been discussing these new proposed edits for some time now. The question of RS, V and NPov has been dealt with in an agreed Break so that Discussion might ensure, The accussations were not substantiated, quite the reverse in fact, check for yourself. Other than that I am not aware of the consensus you mention? The other recent allegations I have directed to your talk for redress as a concerning pattern seems to be emerging!Jagra

Botanical Science

Hi Jagra,

I decided to wait the fish out while I compiled more references. And I might well complain of vandalism if he continues to revert them. I find the ignorance and vehemence of his charges pretty appalling- if he doesn't understand the information then it is invalid. What are these consensuses that people here are citing? KSVaughan2 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The "fish" knows more about medicine than you'll ever know. Having looked over his reversions of Jagra, I find them to be valid. Keep in mind that others have reverted those edits as well. If you are so unaware of what "consensus" is, perhaps you might want to do some research on WP policies. •Jim62sch• 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

He probably knows more about _Pharmaceutical_ medicine than I but he certainly doesn't come close to what I know about _Botanical_ medicine. Confusing botanical medicine with homeopathy is a rather significant hole in his medical education- akin to not knowing the difference between orthopedic medicine and neurology. It isn't his area of expertise. We don't revert his pharmaceutical information, why should he revert information within our area of expertise? Hardly Npov! KSVaughan2 22:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't confuse Homeopathy with Herbalism. I just think they are both pseudoscience, and therefore not appropriate to medical articles. Once again, I would suggest you refrain from personal attacks. And medicine is a science, not based on folklore, rumor, eastern philosophy or anything else but science. Those botanicals that now contribute to standard medical practice have been analyzed for safety and efficacy in a double-blind clinical trial, not on a GNC sales person. And I would suggest you read NPOV carefully. It does not state that all views rate equal time in an article, it says verifiable (with acceptable sources) statements carry much more weight than those that aren't verified. Orangemarlin 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

SCIENCE in MEDICINE

Hi Karen,

I have been busy at the end of the financial year, so was unable to respond sooner. I keep reading that Shingles is a Medical article, when it is really a medical science one, just look at the references! whats the difference? Most uninformed individuals believe that science is the hand-maiden of medicine, but in fact she is but a poor cousin, and it is only in relatively recent times that practitioners have been cajolled into Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines, and then usually by their insurers. The difficulty for practitioners is that in many countries a degree to practice medicine does not qualify them as medical scientists. Many of the techniques used in EBM are in fact science, engineering and mathematics tools. As many medical degrees no longer have mathematics as a core subject, for this reason practitioneers are limited in both their understanding of the science and its proper application. Indeed being a medicical practitioner limits the peer reveiwed journals they can publish in, to those of their true peers. A real scientist both recognises the value of other science disciplines, and indeed the multidisciplinary approach to complex problems. Claiming that someone “knows more about medicine than you'll ever know”( see above) does not in any sense of the language qualify them as an expert in medical science, or give them any authority to limit anothers work. Particually coming from a ‘linguist’ pretending to be able to understand and validate medical science edits! Their real claim to fame is as ‘Administators” in Wiki. keep that perspective, mostly they are technocrats, not scientists like you, and probably can’t understand much of the science.

As to the gold standard of double blind placebo controlled trials, others claim this is a pharmaceutical mantra, see Evidence-Based Medicine ^(talk) and it produces nonsense if the mathematics are applied incorrectly. I am reminded of a course given by professor David Eddy and reported in an editorial of the BMJ volume 303. He was a surgeon who gave up practice because he could not support scientifically his proceedures and becaame a professor of mathematics. His work led to the conclusion that only 15% of medical interventions then were supported by solid scientific evidence, because only 1% of the articles in medical journals were sound scientifically. His students later reveiwed every medical science article in the vaunted respected peer reveiwed medical journals, for a full year, and found only 30% reached the correct scientific conclusion about their own work, and not always for the right analysis? In polite medical science circles, medical research funded by pharmaceutical companies is considered prima-facia biased, unless proven otherwise. So it seems medicine is anything else but science! So just what weight should we give to so called Verifiable scources? Little wonder then that more than 50% of medical visits are to alternative practitioners, they could probably claim similar verifiable relevance. I don’t want this to give the wrong impression that I am against Western medicine, rather that I am not naïve enough to support its pretensions, or any other alternative, for that matter, without qualification. Western medicine is more largely based upon empirical observation over time, just like in other cultures. It may aspire to be more science validated than other cultures, but to claim it is science based now is both misleading and denialist. I am all for more science in medicine and other alternative disciplines, but cannot support pretensions.

What Evidence-Based Medicine reductionist editors and supporting uninformed administators need to clearly understand is that if the EBM editing stategy is carried out to its logical conclusion then only 15% to 30% of existing medical practices will remain. Or in terms of Wiki, only that percentage of medical/science articles will remain as valid, the rest will likely be reverted. Any other line in the sand drawn on the grounds of rationalism, is just that and not defensable in the name of science. The only real defence to such a practice is lack of funding for the necessary research to obtain EBM evidence.

Where such evidence is available and clear and funding not disproportionate, then EBM should be the standard. However in emerging diseases where the eitology or pathogenesis is not clear, such as in say CFS, PTSD, MS, where funding for research is a real issue, then applying the blowtorch of EBM is both unconscionable and irrational. In such conditions any science findings from whatever discipline is noteworthy and sort by sufferers and their supportors, Wiki is where many look to first. It is the accumulation of such early science, often at the initiation of patient support groups, that can lead to breakthrough understandings, research and eventually evidence. Sure there are a lot of dry gullies but to call this process pseudo-science or fringe science is humbug and misses the point about the article altogether. You will note that I said science findings, not supposistions.

So in the meantime who gets to decide where to draw the line in the sand, how arbitrarily is it drawn, and how consistently is it applied.? Where a discussion between editors is about differences in the arbitrary line location then administators ought to have the common sense to understand their own limitations in interpreting such matters and the consequences of a full EBM editing strategy. Editors that advocate such and even apply it selectively according to their own POV regarding say certain feilds of science, or other practioners are the real threat to the dissemination of knowledge, and the practice is called medical scientism. “Where is the wisdom and where”, the question asked by T.S.Elliot “is knowledge lost in information” is as appropriate here and now as ever.

If the accuser likes to make sweeping generalisations, that no doubt will impress some, but my review of his references found, consumer magazine articles without primary references (not V), out of date opinion reveiws (not RS), and very definate POV, have a read sometime, and post a note there if you as a scientist agree. Consensus has to be on the discussion page of the Article concerned, not on user talk pages. I am still reseaching 'collusion' in regard to this. As to accusations of Fringe Science, I will let the above speak for just what is “fringe”. My Jungian antenna tells me that all is not what it pretends to be.Jagra 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Particually coming from a ‘linguist’ pretending to be able to understand and validate medical science edits!" ROFL. You should never assume that a person has only one specialty, nor should you assume lack of comprehension or nowledge. Your basic problem is that you are not a good writer and seem unable to explain why the edits you make have any validity to or bearing on the article. Simply cutting and pasting references destroys any chance at knowledge by burying the reader in an avalanche of poorly explained factoids pretending to be information. •Jim62sch• 09:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

you see Jim62 you can make relevant comments, I only just found it thank you, you dont have to make absurd opening statements to get attention. My critisim is that reverting edits with abstruse generalised statements, and not prepared to discuss specifics can leave editors guessing and does not in the end help improve articles. By the way it was a mistake to assume i would comprehend your coded message, is there somewhere in Wiki that defines such abbreviations? Jagra 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Jagra! However, your edit was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule groups\.msn\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 01:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Noted thanks Jagra

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) 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, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Filll 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fill, actually others are reverting my edit without addressing comments on talk page or sensible comment on edit bar,Jagra

Are you mad? This edit summary explains precisely what the problem is, "Reverted edits to previous version by User:Hqb. Edits were poorly written, did not make a case for involvement with CFS, and citations were not relevant. What is this?) ". •Jim62sch• 09:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)You might well ask as little of this was substantiated Jagra

You continue to make highly intelligent comments on this page, suggest you read article discussion page for your answer Jagra

Ah, subtle sarcasm, how thoroughly enjoyable. •Jim62sch• 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And then the emjoyment came to an end, for there was no answer, no response, nothing that was not there this morning. Alas, I am now in a funk. •Jim62sch• 21:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jim 62 The answer is on the article talk page, hope you enjoy, morning my time Jagra

CFS research

Hi Jagra ... I only just recently discovered the comment you left on my CFS research page, by accident! Thanks for taking the time to write a detailed reply. We are somewhat stuck on how to improve the content; the article is too large for one page, but I doubt there will be an agreement on split pages. Like you said, the problem with original research is that it depends a lot on what the "researcher" deems appropriate. The same problem exists for published reviews, although some of these have stricter methodology. Furthermore, while Wikipedia has a range of policies to ensure high quality content, controversial subjects like CFS are more subject to POV. As you implied, we need a very general all-encompassing approach to research, which is what I tried to do, but I'm not an expert with evaluating the quality of studies; systematic reviews can be extremely valuable, but unfortunately not many of these have been done for the different issues in CFS. While synthesis of primary sources isn’t appropriate in the CFS article, there are many gaps that could be plugged with a summary of available research on uncertain issues, rather just having nothing and giving the impression that no research has been done. However, it may be easier sticking to the WP:OR and WP:NPOV policies by focusing more on the proposed hypotheses involved rather than summarising research. You sometimes receive criticism regarding your edits and I don't think all of it is warranted; although some of your edits tend to be too big and complex (I understand that it can be difficult to condense the text). While speculating about the implications of research is interesting, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia either and perhaps can only be mentioned when stated by the actual study researchers or relevant parties (as long as it is attributed to them). I think the current discussion you started on the talk page (21st September 2007) will be productive, so I will post there next. You're welcome to email me through my talk page if you want to discuss anything about CFS or your research that you would rather not post here. - Tekaphor (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

End of Tunnel

Jag..thanks for book reference....I tried looking it up on amazon and could not find it....thanks....sno Sno2 11:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC) I have a copy and the full title is " The cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Light at the end of the tunnel" author David Eather ISBN 0-646389-02-5 good hunting Jagra

Can not find...!!!...did search amazon and barnes and noble.....do you remember where you got your book....??....thanks have fun....sno Sno2 08:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sno 2, I got mine from the author, book has no publisher listed, I think was self published, regards Jagra

Thanks for letting me know and looking for it....do you remember if he had any cure for it...as I would like to drink a glass of wine every evening....<g>.....have fun....sno Sno2 09:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)