Dbhall2

Dbhall2, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Dbhall2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
• Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! -- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Antibiotics has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Antibiotics was changed by Dbhall2 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.950104 on 2015-01-14T01:16:41+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation formatting

Hello, thanks for your edits. However, Wikipedia citations should be formatted using a template like {{cite journal}}, not just with a bare URL. There are several citation tools to help with this, and I've used them on your recent edits at Antibiotics and Penicillin. You might also find the page on referencing for beginners with citation templates useful. Graham87 07:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk page

Please discuss your proposed changes as they are controversial. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure what is controversial. Following the Wikipedia style guidelines re: neutral point of view, the cited reference reviews the data on the Atkins diet and shows weak evidence supporting long term weight loss (decreased weight, moderate risk of bias). Short term evidence is stronger, but probably not relevant. Describing weak evidence as "only" weak evidence is straight out of the Wikipedia style guide as an example of an editorial comment. Regarding the comparison as "compared to not dieting at all", the control conditions for the reviewed studies were coded as behavioral counseling by the authors. In reviewing the actual studies, the behavioral counseling involves education similar in intensity and scope to the active condition. Describing that control condition as "compared to not dieting at all" is inaccurate, and beyond that, doesn't use a neutral point of view. If you want to make that edit, reference a reliable secondary source that supports it.

In general, Atkins may have some risks, doesn't show great performance in the long term, but is about as effective as other commercial diets, meaning it isn't as effective as the claims. If you want to add a section on the claims and how it doesn't perform as well as the claims, I'd support that as its own section, provided you don't use original research.

Please discuss here Talk:Atkins_diet#Summary_of_evidence Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dbhall2 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: ). Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing logged out?

Is this IP edit[1] yours? Please be aware of WP:SOCK.Alexbrn (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not me. It could be a student of mine. I mentioned this wikipedia discussion today as an example of how people can disagree on the interpretation of the literature.

That would sound like WP:MEAT then; it leaves a very bad taste. Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not WP:MEAT I didn't ask or recruit anyone to edit. I mentioned our back and forth in class. There isn't a fight club requirement, is there? Am I not supposed to talk about Wikipedia?

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest? Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn I teach doctors and other clinicians. I don't think any of them see me as their sovereign :)