Jump to content

User talk:BrianRothbart: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 36: Line 36:
:It depends. Do they cite your work and say it repeats it? If not, then it's your [[WP:OR|original research]] that is making the conclusion. That's fine for a research publication, but not for Wikipedia. We don't publish novel thoughts. We only publish what can already be verified. [[User:Biosthmors|Biosthmors]] ([[User talk:Biosthmors|talk]]) 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
:It depends. Do they cite your work and say it repeats it? If not, then it's your [[WP:OR|original research]] that is making the conclusion. That's fine for a research publication, but not for Wikipedia. We don't publish novel thoughts. We only publish what can already be verified. [[User:Biosthmors|Biosthmors]] ([[User talk:Biosthmors|talk]]) 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


Their study was to determine if the foot exists. At that time, the assumption was, if the foot structure exists than it should be measureable (the metatarsal supinatus exists and be measureable). The results were that the foot supinatus exists. They were able to measure it with great accuracy.
Their study was to determine if the foot supinatus exists (hallmark of the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity). At that time, the assumption was, if the foot supinatus exists than it should be measureable. Based on that assumption, they devised a way to measure if it existed or not.

Their results were that the foot supinatus does indeed exist. They were able to measure it with great accuracy.


It was an independent study (I was not involved). Their study validated my research.
It was an independent study (I was not involved). Their study validated my research.

I did not put this in the article thinking it was not necessary. Was I wrong?

Professor Rothbart

Revision as of 20:49, 23 August 2013

Welcome!

Hello, BrianRothbart, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

August 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity has been reverted.
Your edit here to PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://rothbartsite.com/uploads/Medial_Column_Foot_System.pdf, http://rothbartsite.com/uploads/Nov-Dec09_Podiatry_Review.pdf) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

Just to let you know I saw mention of your article at WT:MED. Wikipedia is to have a balance of citations (called "due weight") and you can read more here. It appears the article lacks that sort of balance. You can check out the WP:Teahouse to ask for advice, by the way, if you'd like to learn how to edit "correctly". Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I just revised my citations. Please take a look. Any suggestions?
Professor Rothbart
Greetings again. Did you see my last comments at User talk:Biosthmors? The concerns I express there (esp. the links to 42, GNG, and MEDRS) still apply. Biosthmors (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to see the sources I've used to write the DVT article, see that list of references. We tend to have strict sourcing guidelines for medical information here, as mentioned at WT:MED. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This might be of help. A research grant at the Georgia University (1997), independently conducted by Cummings et al proved the existence of the inherited abnormal foot structure that I first wrote about. In essence, a measuring protocol was developed to measure the supinatus (structural elevation) of the 1st metatarsal and then ran. A team of researchers then measured the degree of supinatus in the feet diagnosed as having this foot structure. There was a high inter and intra reliability in the measurements. That is, in the blinded study, they all came up with the same measurements and conclusions (the abnormal foot structure can be reliably measured).

Does this meet the standing for secondary citations?

Professor Rothbart

It depends. Do they cite your work and say it repeats it? If not, then it's your original research that is making the conclusion. That's fine for a research publication, but not for Wikipedia. We don't publish novel thoughts. We only publish what can already be verified. Biosthmors (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their study was to determine if the foot supinatus exists (hallmark of the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity). At that time, the assumption was, if the foot supinatus exists than it should be measureable. Based on that assumption, they devised a way to measure if it existed or not.

Their results were that the foot supinatus does indeed exist. They were able to measure it with great accuracy.

It was an independent study (I was not involved). Their study validated my research.

I did not put this in the article thinking it was not necessary. Was I wrong?

Professor Rothbart