Jump to content

Talk:Epilepsy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
PowerBOT (talk | contribs)
3,345 edits
Updating vital article template
Article needs info about this if found true
Line 30: Line 30:
{{WikiProject Disability|class=GA|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Disability|class=GA|importance=High}}
}}
}}

== experiment proposal ==
I really want to know if someone with frequent epileptic episodes (without visible or audible stimuli) has any significant change in them if they are 100% surrounded with triple layer tin or aluminum foil that is earth grounded.
The theory is that the seizures have something to do with hyper sensitivity emf or something that radiates in. This is based on numerous accounts of people being able to fill in words or respond to what another is saying before they finished question and some peoples ability to hear conversations at distance that weren't audible to my ears even though I have very sensitive hearing.



== External links modified ==
== External links modified ==

Revision as of 23:21, 9 October 2018

Template:Vital article

Good articleEpilepsy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 14, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

experiment proposal

I really want to know if someone with frequent epileptic episodes (without visible or audible stimuli) has any significant change in them if they are 100% surrounded with triple layer tin or aluminum foil that is earth grounded. The theory is that the seizures have something to do with hyper sensitivity emf or something that radiates in. This is based on numerous accounts of people being able to fill in words or respond to what another is saying before they finished question and some peoples ability to hear conversations at distance that weren't audible to my ears even though I have very sensitive hearing.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Epilepsy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osmosis video

I have removed the Osmosis video File:Epilepsy video.webm, which was added by User:Doc James in this edit with the summary "Added". I see no discussion on this talk page proposing or announcing the video.

The video is not sourced per WP:MEDRS or WP:V and uses language throughout (e.g. "patients") that is discouraged by WP:MEDMOS. It uses out-of-date terminology ("complex partial seizure"). The style of the video is a lecture to medical students giving them key terms to revise for an exam. The video consists of audio narration combined with scribbles on an electronic whiteboard. It is heavy with text, bullet points, hand-drawings of stick figures, but contains nothing that actually augments what the article (should) contain already.

Per WP:V "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." This video does not contain any sources, nor any means to tie sources to specific facts and claims made. Per WP:V, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" This material must not be restored as-is.

There has been no community-wide discussion to gain approval for Wikipedia to accept articles-as-videos. The multiple problems with such content is discussed at WP:NOTYOUTUBE. Even if this video is revised to correct the above policy-level flaws, editors must gain Wikipedia consensus prior to restoring content that is totally at odds with Wikipedia's current model of content development and values. -- Colin°Talk 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the video in question that was removed without consensus.
If you read WP:LEAD, the lead just needs to be supported by the body of the text, it does not need inline references itself.
Yes we have thousands of instances of the term "patient" though tout Wikipedia. If you go and simple try to delete them all there is a good chance you will end up blocked. How many instances of "patient" have you converted to "person" over the last two years?
Videos do enhance articles. Just because you wrote an essay does not mean it automatically becomes policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the video as a consensus has not been reached here. Graham Beards (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Graham Beards consensus is required for a change in content.
This video has been in this article for more than a year.
They are working to remove the term "patient" from all their videos. It is something that has been on their to do list for some time. It just takes time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I remind James that when he claims "consensus is required for a change in content" this applies to his insertion. You were bold in inserting it without discussion; it has been reverted (twice); the onus is on you to gain consensus for your change. James, you live in a bubble where rules apply to other people. Secondly, if you make another comment like "How many instances of "patient" have you converted to "person" over the last two years?" I will take you to ANI to get you blocked. You are the reason I have not edited medical articles for years. You. Thirdly, WP:V does not permit you to edit war to restore challenged text. Do this again, and I will have you blocked.

OK, there's a bold claim that this video meets WP:LEAD and so coesn't need citations. There are two aspects to that. Firstly, whether a video that just happens to be inserted near the top of the article actually counts as a "lead" section, and secondly whether this means citations are not required and thirdly whether the claim is true, that the video is merely a summary of the article text.

  1. It is a weird claim that a video can be a "lead". This is by all definitions a piece of writing at the top of an essay that summarises the contents. There's no such term as a "lead video". In addition, WP:LEAD clearly defines it as "the section before the table of contents and the first heading." It is a piece of writing: "The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style". Also "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate". Hmm, paragraphs. Then we get to what a Lead contains: Disambiguation links, tags, info boxes, lead image(s), table of contents, and most importantly introductory text. Note the word "text".
  2. MOS:LEADCITE does not in fact provide an exclusion for leads. I'm not going to repeat the text here. Since it is possible to edit the article body and article lead together, these can be kept in sync wrt facts and sources. That is not possible for these videos, so I am not convinced any special rules are merited.
  3. Is the video a summary of the article. Well, no. (list forthcoming)... -- Colin°Talk 17:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I get it. You do not like videos, especially these videos. Sure bring me to ANI. I have encouraged you to do so multiple times in the past. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm monitoring your fruitless conversation, Colin, I still don't see your point( the videos can be edited, what more do you want??)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the video summarise the article

  • "Epilepsy means seizure disorder". No. They are synonyms; one does not mean the other any more than "car" means "auto-mobile". The article does not claim this meaning, and in fact does not define the word at all (it used to).
  • "A seizure is a period where cells in the brain, or neurons, are synchronously active, or active at the same time, when they're not supposed to be." -- "when they're not supposed to be"? Who wrote this? No, that's not in the article either.
  • "Now, when I say neurons are active, I mean that they are firing, or sending a message using electrical signals relayed from neuron to neuron." -- The article does use the word "active" nor define the term "firing" or talk about electrical signals.
  • "And if you look at a neuron under a microscope" -- nope, not the the article either.
  • "each electrical signal that passes through it is really just ions flowing in and out through protein channels [screen shows Na+ and Ca2+ ions]" -- no explanation of "electrical signal" in the article. No mention of sodium and calcium ions either.
  • "The way this ion flow is controlled is through neurotransmitters" Neurotransmitters are not mentioned in the article.
  • "a type of signalling molecule" no mention of signalling molecules
  • "and receptors" no discussion of receptors wrt electrical signalling and ion flow
  • "Neurotransmitters bind to the receptors" Not in the article they don't.
  • "And basically tell the cell to open up the ion channels, and relay the electrical message, (called Excitatory neurotransmitters), or close the ion channel and stop the electrical message (called Inhibitory neurotransmitters)." Would you be surprised that excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters are not mentioned in the article.
  • "During a seizure, clusters of neurons in the brain become temporarily impaired, and start sending out a ton of excitatory signals, over and over again" Nothing about "temporarily impaired". The body says "excessive" but apparently these signals are weighed in tons. Who knew?
  • "And these are sometimes said to be paroxysmal" Well the article mentions "a wave of depolarization known as a paroxysmal depolarizing shift." but since the reader isn't told what "paroxysmal" means, or "depolarization", or why it should be "waving", who knows if this is equivalent.
  • "These paroxysmal electrical discharges are thought to happen due to either too much excitation or too little inhibition, which are kinda two sides of the same coin, right?". Not in the article. Coins aren't mentioned either.
  • "The main exitatory neurotransmitter in the brain is glutamate, and NMDA is the primary receptor" We already know "exitatory neurotransmitter" isnt' in the article and it comes as no surprise that "glutamate" and "NMDA" aren't either.
  • I'm less than 2 minutes into this video, but that's enough...

James the video is actually a not-bad introduction to a few aspects of epilepsy for medical students incapable of reading textbooks without taking stimulant drugs. The reason I know this video does not summarise the article is that the article is a collection of incoherent factoids that are both confused and confusing, resulting in a pile of steaming shite in pure form, and the video is not. Assuming you have actually watched the video, the reason you should already know the video does not summarise the article is that you wrote this article. -- Colin°Talk 18:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of your argument is textbook WP:BADFAITH, screams of moving the goalposts once any first criticism is responded to, and is very DISRUPTIVE. I implore you to cut off this nonsense, and at the very least let the discussion pan out where it is most active before moving to a new place with it. You've now moved this off to at least 7 different forums. I will respond to this with an WP:AN/I-report regarding your conduct Colin if you do not stop. Carl Fredrik talk 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CFCF the "moving the goalposts" attempt was you and James with your false claims that the videos are similar to the article lead text or summarise the article. You have both been shown to be spreading untrue statements. Be careful of ANI, as it has a habit of boomeranging on those who aren't truthful. -- Colin°Talk 19:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on video inclusion

Should the article include this video? GMGtalk 21:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Neutral - But there is an extended discussion regarding this here for anyone who is interested in the context. Although it's hardly required reading, and I think it does everybody more good if we decide this particular case on its own merits. GMGtalk 21:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

@GreenMeansGo: this has already been decided by a global RFC, that was already up when you added this RFC. Could you please figure out how to remove this RFC, so other editors don't have to waste their time in coming here to find something that has already been decided? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia  Done There's no requirement really other than to remove the template so Legobot doesn't notify anyone. Having said that, I'm not going to at all be surprised if any RfC at all with more than a half dozen options fails to find a strong and uniquely actionable consensus. But no need to have two going simultaneously and we can always restart this one if the other doesn't make any headway. GMGtalk 14:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: The broader RFC showed remarkable consensus in the first 24 hours, and is done. There is no longer a problematic video on this article, or any other, to discuss. Thanks for removing this one-- I was afraid it was more involved than just at this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...SandyGeorgia... I assume we are talking about the same RfC? Because that one has been open less that 48 hours and if there is a crystal clear consensus, I'm not seeing it at first glance. Is there another? GMGtalk 14:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The videos have been removed. (sorry you don't see the direction that RFC was going) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Epilepsy&oldid=863305240"