User talk:MrOllie
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
MedCalc article revision
I revised the references for MedCalc. The use in several textbooks should also show notability. Can you have a look at it? Frank1848 (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Snowshoe
You have removed UK history content that has been on the page for years. Please explain why or how it can be reinstated? Justicepreviails2020 (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Mollie Southall did a lot for the breed in the UK. She has since passed away. By deleting the text. You are deleting history. Justicepreviails2020 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it has been badly sourced for years and is long overdue for removal. Please see wikipedia's sourcing requirements. We must have independently published sources with a reputation for fact checking - newspapers, published books from well known publishers, etc. We cannot rely people's personal websites or the self published websites of clubs. Wikipedia is not a place for everything that happened, we only summarize what we find in sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Refspam
MrOllie Tell me one reason why you have reverted my edits on the Proving ground article? I have added informative information to that article, information that was missing!!! If is because a cited our article then go ahead and revert 10030230430 other Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primozrome (talk • contribs) 10:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- We've been over this before. You must stop adding links to your employer. If you do not you can expect that your account will be blocked and/or the domain will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Richard Sears's Chinese Etymology
Hi MrOllie. Regarding this removal, the site does appeal for donations, but as far as I can see is not selling anything, and all of its content is freely available, and a useful supplement to the Chinese characters article. Kanguole 19:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Bralettes Became the New Normal
Please advise changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karachi Kings Dr (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- The only sources are a couple of headlines in fashion sections. It's not a notable example, it should be omitted entirely. - MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Polyvagal Theory
Dear MrOllie,
I can appreciate your stated goal for balanced presentation of all Wikipedia topics. This was my aim when I made edits to that page yesterday. The previous, and now again current, definition did not define in any way, shape or form the actual meaning of the theory. Rather, it used the most widely read part of the page to describe it as a set of fringe claims that are not accepted by the professional community of neuroscience experts without telling the reader what it actually claims.
The complaints I have are as follows:
- 'fringe': polyvagal theory is indeed relatively new and unknown to many in the medical world, but it also supported by some of the most influential and respected clinicians and thinkers in medicine. Examples include Dr. Norman Doidge, author of the best selling book in modern neuroscience 'The Brain that Heals Itelf', Dr. Bessel van der Kolk, arguably the most well-known and respected voice in the field of trauma, Dr. Peter Levine, Dr. Gabor Matte, etc.
At the current time, MD's are developing programs at Kaiser Permanente and United Health Care which include training in Dr. Porges' Polyvagal Theory. Given this level of mainstream acceptance, is it fair to label it 'fringe'?
- 'unproven and lacking citations': Please see Dr. Porges' scientific papers list of scientific papers
- general understanding of what polyvagal theory purports to say: as it is, no one can read the two sentence definition on Wikipedia and have any idea of what polyvagal theory purports to say. Can we not explain what PVT is for both professionals and lay readers alike?
I can understand the need for an objective presentation. I would, however, argue that this means the page should include: 1) a clear definition of what Dr. Porges' theory says (without opinion one way or the other), 2) a clear presentation of contrary opinion, and 3) a balanced presentation of the theory's validity in the scientific community (to my knowledge there is one scientist who disagrees with Dr. Porges and that person has so far not been willing to address Dr. Porges' rebuttal of his criticism).
Thank you for your consideration. I hope we can arrive at a presentation of PVT which enables readers understand what it says and what the actual criticism of it is.