User talk:WATerian

Hello, WATerian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Boghog2 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Thank you for contributing to our articles. If you are interested in making more contributions on cell biology and biochemistry topics, you might want to join the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject (signup here). You will be most welcome. - Boghog2 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hi. Great work on expanding the GLUT2 article! In case you haven't already seen this, check out the template filler tool. Given a PMID, you can quickly create a fully formatted {{cite journal}} template that can be directly copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. Using this tool will save you a lot of work and insure that citations are displayed in a consistent way. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TIA/stroke

I suggest you have a close look at a number of content policies and guidelines before making further changes to the TIA and stroke articles. In the stroke article, you suggest that everyone with localising neurological signs should receive honey. I think that without a very strong source, this is not just unproven but dangerous. Stroke patients may aspirate buccal and gastric contents (including honey), and calling for emergency care may be delayed because someone is thinking "oh it's just a hypo, let's wait for the honey to work".

Could I suggest you read WP:NOR and WP:MEDRS to find out about making contributions to medical articles? JFW | T@lk 18:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this ... Oral_glucose_gel ... it has a similar consistency to honey? You appear to prefer People to suffer neuroglycopenia rather than engage the possibility of relief from hypoglycemia via glucose/fructose?

Please explain your perceived degree of alleged aspiration pneumonia danger from honey?

Dr Fredrick Banting, teaches [in his famous 1925 lecture] about the onset of HYPOglycemia, stating:

"... The first warning of hypo-glycaemia was an unaccountable anxiety and a feeling of impending trouble associated with restlessness ..."

Also Dr Banting states:

"... The ingestion of carbohydrate, in the form of orange juice (four to eight ounces), or of glucose, relieves these symptoms in from one-quarter to one-half hour. If the reaction is severe, or if coma or convulsions occur, epinephrin or intravenous glucose should be given. The former acts in from three to ten minutes, but in order that the symptoms should not recur, glucose must be given by mouth as soon as the patient has sufficiently recovered. The patients were warned that when these reactions occurred they were to obtain carbohydrate immediately ..." [1] - WATerian 20:19hrs gmt sun 22mar2009

What you are suggesting is that all stroke patients, even those who are not likely to have hypos, should be treated as if they have a hypo. With stroke thrombolysis becoming an accepted modality, your advice would lead to people with potentially salvageable brain tissue being treated empirically for a "hypo". You are not basing yourself on any authoritative sources (see WP:MEDRS for background).

You should really stop making changes to stroke without discussing this on the talkpage (Talk:Stroke). I face the decision of having to block your account for lack of collaboration with other editors. JFW | T@lk 22:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented are cited. The information may be new to You and the questionable understanding of the editors who You endorse and the questionable comments that You have facilitated without question but the fact is the information submitted on my part is historical. - WATerian 23:35hrs gmt mon23mar 2009

The content you added is erroneous or irrelevant. Please do not readd your content until you have conducted a discussion on Talk:Stroke. JFW | T@lk 19:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hulda Clark

The understanding you have of her cause of death fails to get at the heart of what was happening. A parallel situation can be used to illustrate. People rarely have "smoking tobacco" listed as their cause of death, and instead have lung cancer listed, or even "milder" conditions that were caused by the cancer. Well, it was the smoking that really caused it all to happen. The same can happen with AIDS patients, with a common cold being listed as the cause of death, when it was the AIDS that weakened them so much that a cold could kill them. That's all putting it simply, but I hope you get the point. It helps to have a medical background to understand these things. Many of the editors your are dealing with are medical professionals, not lay people. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain from the facts re. the words upon Clark's death certificate evidence that specifically states: "... not resulting in the underlying cause ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WATerian (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please join the article talk page discussion?

I agree it would be helpful to have a detailed explanation of what section 112 of the certificate of death is used for and what "Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause given in 107" means. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be edit warring over this issue. Participation at the talkpage is good, but you may be blocked from editing if you continue reverting the article against consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing your edit warring will get you blocked. You MUST achieve a consensus on the talk page before making anymore such edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

This is your only warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Hulda Regehr Clark, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 02:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume that you weren't clear on what I was referring to with the above warning. This edit reintroduces links which blatantly violate the policy on biographical material. If you reinsert them again, then I will ask that you be blocked from editing, because this kind of editing isn't an acceptable use of Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WATerian, you should note that BLP applies to all living persons, whether it be the subjects of articles, Wikipedia editors, or people outside of Wikipedia. The BLP policy forbids harassment, outing, or the use of sources that engage in such activities. The source you posted is unreliable in this regard and must not be used. Your current attempts to continually edit war over this type of content and this issue are disruptive behavior and you are headed in the direction of the door. Cease and desist would be a good idea. This will get you nowhere. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and dubious YouTube videos are simply not appropriate sources for an encyclopedic biography. Nor is it appropriate to constantly reinsert them on an article talk page. The point of the article talk page is to convince other editors that your preferred changes are consistent with this site's policies. You're not going to accomplish that by constantly reinserting ever larger numbers of inappropriate sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WATerian, your ideas of what is true or not aren't relevant here: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The issue is far more complicated than a simplistic reading of the death certificate, and you need reliable sources that discuss that matter. I agree with Nunh-huh: "I"m afraid I disagree with you on this. No physician on reading that certificate would think anything other than that she had died of complications of multiple myeloma."[2] The symptoms listed on the death certificate were obviously caused by the multiple myeloma. They didn't come by themselves. She didn't get the multiple myeloma treated and she died of the complications.

BTW, are you the same editor who also edits as User:Cosmos1745? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]