Mitrakardes

October 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tennis elbow, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit changed. This material was deleted because 1. Most lateral epicondylitis occurs in people who do not play tennis; 2. There are better secondary sources that look at the collected evidence for activities and symptoms and found inconsistencies and shortcomings.  We now detail that work; and 3) The study cited as a reference from 1979 on tennis players and seems to confirm what are now thought to be myths and they do so using relatively unscientific means such as self-report surveys that might simply record that bias/myth, and 4) The other reference was a patient hand out, not a secondary scientific report. Mitrakardes (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine

A WP:WikiProject is a group of editors who like to work together on articles. You're welcome to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. It's a good place to ask questions or to help each other out.

If you'd like to, you're also welcome to join the informal, low-key contest about adding citations to articles: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds (All you have to do is sign up at that link, and then edit normally. Everything else is automated.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Unhelpful thoughts

You removed this sentence: "There are few disorders on the differential diagnosis for carpal tunnel syndrome." with a note about it reinforcing unhelpful thoughts. I'm curious about what you think is unhelpful in this sentence. (I suspect that we need a link to Differential diagnosis and maybe an explanation in the CTS article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Reply...

Hi Mitrakardes. Thank you for your note.

As I commented on the article talk page, "Whatever the merits of your arguments are, you do not simply and unilaterally delete the content at stake. That's not how consensus works." This comment is not based on any medical or other professional intepretation of the content. However, I am willing to accept, at least at face value, the existing statement of "evidence-based guideline produced by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons". That said, I take for granted that you know as well as I do that for every half-dozen reputable experts in any field that say one thing, there are six equally reputable experts in the same field that say the exact opposite... which is precisely why we have a Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV), and one of the project's five pillars, and which is what I applied as my sole criteria in reverting your massive blanking of referenced content. If you haven't yet read it, I urge you to do so, but just to summarise, it basically allows you to add whatever content you like, as long as you can provide reliable sources to back said content. The extension of that is, as I'm sure you can appreciate, that you can refute any existing content as long as you can back it up with reliable sources, thereby adding to the ongoing conversation or, to put it another way, the transmission of knowledge. The key point here is that, and again, this is something basic, you cannot just delete content, especially content that has reliable sources, just because you disagree with it, whether in part or completely. I hope that answers both your questions. If not, I will be happy to try to explain it differently, even at the risk of repeating myself. Regarding my comment on consensus, I think that it's clear that the lack of feedback to a message on a talk page can never be interpreted as a "vote" in favour or against, but simply as a natural consequence of people not being on here 24/7. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Been here before...

I've already asked you not to simply remove sourced content you disagree with and I have already explained to you that the place to reach the necessary consensus for removing such content is the corresponding article talk page. However, despite my explanations you have continued to remove large amounts of referenced content at your discretion and made no attempt to seek consensus. Please do not continue to remove sourced content without first having sought and, needless say, but I'll state it anyway, obtained the corresponding consensus. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)