Talk:Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:43, 27 November 2015

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Review

doi:10.1111/head.12040 JFW | T@lk 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reference

86.21.250.21...Peter Rothwell, Sarah Pendlebury and Philip Anslow (2007). Neurological Case Histories (Oxford Case Histories): Case Histories in Acute Neurology and the Neurology of General Medicine (Oxford University Press). pp. 146 – 148 have been unable to verify[1] as there is no link?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a digital copy of the book, and those pages do not mention this syndrome at all. Here are the cited pages. KateWishing (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in that case they do not support the source.,thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was given an incorrect page ref, however the book does include presentation of encephalitis as a side effect - let's see of Kate has actually read the whole tome. Instead of removing the reference book, why doesn't she actually put the correct page number in then. Her action simply shows that she is more interested in forcing her views and agenda, than including anyone else's book ref. Did she actually buy a copy of the book, or was it an illegally pirated copy in PDF via a Google search?

Anyway, another respected paper has now been included. I won't hold my breath for the (woefully) unqualified wannabe-doctor Kate Wishing to try and remove this one, despite her using the same source of documents on her own refs. In the meantime, perhaps Ozzie10aaaa might like to enquire with her why she has removed a whole tranche of credible text from other contributors, and positioned all the main reference sources to one author, when there were previously a number of highly credible links. This smacks of self-promotion or promoting the interest of someone with whom she may have a connection. Wholly contrary to Wiki 'rules' I believe, although those 'rules' seem to be bent according to how much the text-slashers go crying off to the Moderators, or which ones they know personally. No wonder Wikipedia is in the state it is, when it is managed with such hypocritical values are applied.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :I have a digital copy of the book, and those pages do not mention this syndrome at all. [https://imgur.com/a/uo6By Here are the cited pages]. [[User:KateWishing|KateWishing]] ([[User talk:KateWishing|talk]]) 01:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 ::in that case they do not support the source.,thank you --[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 01:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
+::: I was given an incorrect page ref, however the book does include presentation of encephalitis as a side effect - let's see of Kate has actually read the whole tome.  Instead of removing the reference book, why doesn't she actually put the correct page number in then. Her action simply shows that she is more interested in forcing her views and agenda, than including anyone else's book ref. Did she actually buy a copy of the book, or was it an illegally pirated copy in PDF via a Google search?
+Anyway, another respected paper has now been included. I won't hold my breath for the (woefully) unqualified wannabe-doctor Kate Wishing to try and remove this one, despite her using the same source of documents on her own refs. In the meantime, perhaps Ozzie10aaaa might like to enquire with her why she has removed a whole tranche of credible text from other contributors, and positioned all the main reference sources to one author, when there were previously a number of highly credible links. This smacks of self-promotion or promoting the interest of someone with whom she may have a connection. Wholly contrary to Wiki 'rules' I believe, although those 'rules' seem to be bent according to how much the text-slashers go crying off to the Moderators, or which ones they know personally. No wonder Wikipedia is in the state it is, when it is managed with such hypocritical values are applied.