User talk:DivideBy0

October 2013[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at User:AwesomeEvilGenius, you may be blocked from editing. m.o.p 02:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Redwood Middle School (Saratoga, California) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to (all fixed)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Of Nightingales That Weep, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Koto. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Redwood Middle School Logo.gif[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Redwood Middle School Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Online poker, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. KH-1 (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Lipoker[edit]

Hello, DivideBy0. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lipoker".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Lipoker[edit]

Hello, DivideBy0. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lipoker".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amélie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sonic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I hope to stick to the facts in everything I do -- I tried to link peer reviewed publications in all of my edits. The mind body edits for instance do have the recent RCT to back it up, and I do acknowledge the empirical nature of the rest of the data (and mention that in the edit). I did link a blog post in one of them because it was written by a researcher and a better source than the other resources online, but I can directly link to the research forum next time if that is better. Committed to being as good and factual of a contributor as possible while still presenting people with facts, let me know if these changes sound good and I can go back and edit my changes :) DivideBy0 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements for sourcing medical claims are quite stringent, and can be found at WP:MEDRS. Note in particular that many peer-reviewed sources, including RCTs, do not meet the requirements. MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great read, I read that article. I will go back and add secondary sources (for instance, there are NYU Rusk and Harvard Club recommendations that back up my edits, I can add those as credible secondary sources for the facts!). I'm sure I can find more credible secondary sources as well. Would that help the edits be more factual? I know they are a little outside the mainstream, but there is munting evidence and institutional acceptance in exploring and recommending these ideas. DivideBy0 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NYU and the Harvard Club are not going to meet WP:MEDRS either. Frankly, I would be surprised if you found good sources for that content, since Sarno's methods have been rejected by mainstream medical science. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true... unfortunate, as I do believe they are helpful and new RCTs are helping prove it. Do you think that expert books recommending the clinical practice from him, as the head of pain rehab at NYU for 20 years, (as well as other books from pain experts I can find that recommend it) would fall under "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers"? I can also try to edit the wording to specify more clearly that it's a more empirically proven treatment that one can experiment with, but it's certainly proven far better for treatment than other linked suggestions like heat therapy. I definitely respect your take here and want to do the best I can to represent this as an option to the community without overpromising or being incorrect or promotional in any way. DivideBy0 (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read WP:MEDRS carefully. For something like this you need systematic reviews or statements from major medical organizations (like the WHO) MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few resources for both review studies and NIH recommendations with small-large effects that might strengthen the claims about mindfulness and mindbody therapies. The edits can be rewritten to be more holistic than Sarno's treatments, and take the results and recommendations from here into context:

Acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions for the treatment of chronic pain: a meta-analytic review: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16506073.2015.1098724

NIH NCCIH Clinical Digest for health professionals Mind and Body Approaches for Chronic Pain: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/providers/digest/mind-and-body-approaches-for-chronic-pain

Mindfulness Meditation for Chronic Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27658913/

If you prefer, we can also list it under alternative medicine methods with appropriate disclaimers about how there's only a few studies, but to me it seems better in its own section for both articles. Many of the other listed interventions like acupuncture, cold packs, or many of the other interventions also do not have any review studies, and are not officially WHO recommended either -- should I note that for them?

Do you think you would support such an edit? DivideBy0 (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, note that the NCCIH is definitely not a reliable source.

What you've otherwise got here is covering the same stuff we already have at Mindfulness-based pain management. You could add the studies there. Adding them anywhere else would run afoul of WP:UNDUE. MrOllie (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can leave the NCCIH article out if you prefer. Undue article says we shouldn't give it undue weight; do you think a songle sentence with a disclaimer would be alright then in the two relevant pain articles? I think it would help people source it, and it is a theory supported by multiple review studies like you mentioned, and is equally if not more effective with extremely high statistical significance compared to some of the other therapies listed. DivideBy0 (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

do you think a songle sentence with a disclaimer would be alright then in the two relevant pain articles No, I do not. But feel free to raise it on the article's associated talk pages, others might feel differently. MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]