User talk:Larynxdude

Welcome!

Hello, Larynxdude, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Slp1 (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you work for NCSV? or have links there? You have added and readded links to that institution over multiple articles, some egs,[1] [2] [3][4][5] as well as information cited to Titze, who works at NCSV. Some egs are [6][7][8] Just before you registered, an IP address obviously affliated with NCSV. [9] added the same links to many other articles including the Speech and language pathology that you keep readding it to. Here are just a few of the additions by the IP. [10] [11] [12] [13][14] If you work or are otherwise affliated with NCSV you need to carefully read this wikipedia policy page on conflict of interest. You also need to read this guideline on spam and how not to be a spammer. I don't doubt that you have lots to offer this encyclopedia, and I understand that you are proud of your institution and its professors, but you cannot publicize your institution nor its programs here. I strongly suggest that you go through the pages that you have edited and remove the links to NCSV yourself. I don't mean to discourage you, and I realize that your actions are probably intended to be helpful, but spamming links in this way is not allowed. Thank you. --Slp1 (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note...[edit]

Just so you know, you have now reverted material three times within a 24 hour period in the Speech and language pathology article and are in danger of breaking the three revert rule if you do so again. I am not going to remove the link to NCSV, in part because I am hoping that you will do so yourself as suggested above, so there shouldn't be a problem. But on another occasion you could end up getting blocked for a short period if you repeatedly revert edits in the way you have been. Just for your information!! --Slp1 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the info. Did I revert 3 times? I thought I did twice (then readjusted, reorganized, and wikified the links) as I didn't want to trigger the rule. I guess I could have. The second time I did it as it was easier to edit than to type I am lazy that way). I removed the NCVS link but don't understand you beef with it? For example, one of the best references on the web is this: http://www.ncvs.org/ncvs/info/vocol/rx.html I send people there all of the time. NIDCD and ASHA don't have that. Also, are you an SLP and not know what Titze has done to the field of voice? He is the premier voice scientist in the world. If you disagree, I would be curious to know why? Yes I have strong links to the NCVS; I would bet that 50% of people who work with voice have links to the NCVS. In fact, I am on site at the NCVS today doing some voice measures and talking to their clinicians (I am glad the semester is over and I don't have to be lecturing). Larynxdude (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, SLP1, how do you not have conflict of interest in a small field? This is an issue when I review at NIH. I am always having to excuse myself because of conflicts of interest, hence the people with the knowledge to review are not reviewing.Larynxdude (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not having a conflict of interest, but making conflict of interest edits. "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." It's great if you can contribute your knowledge to the articles, and adding citations to Titze and his research is no problem at all. The difficulty here is that you have added internal and external links to an institution with which you have "strong links" to almost every article you have edited. I'm sure you did this with the best of intentions, but it sure looks like you are trying to promote people's knowledge and awareness of NCSV, doesn't it? And you can't use this encyclopedia to do this.

I would also challenge your claim that 50% of people who work with voice have links to the NCSV. Remember this is a global encyclopedia. Do you really think that 50% of voice experts in France, India, Hong Kong, Japan, Britain, Germany have links with NCSV? Of course not. Each country has their own centres of expertise. Every single one comes onto Wikipedia and wants to add their link and then we have the various countries' centres of expertise in other areas like stuttering, aphasia, AAC, phonology, language disorders all adding their links etc etc etc and you understand why there are strict rules on external links.

re 3RR. The actual method that you use to revert is not important. You reverted the inclusion of the link 3 times in various different ways, which is what is counted in these things. But this is just for your information and doesn't matter now. I appreciate that you have removed the link in question from the article. Thank you. It would also be good to remove the links from the other articles you edited too.

But I really don't want to discourage you from editing. As I said, I am sure you have lots of knowledge at your finger tips that you could add to articles, and as long it is WP:Verifiable from WP:Reliable sources then adding it would be absolutely wonderful.--Slp1 (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your cordialness, that is not the general rule for online communications these days. Just to differ with your perspective, maybe voice and NCVS isnt 50% (maybe 40); go to pubmed and type Ingo Titze, the excecutive director of the NCVS. Then go to http://www.biomedexperts.com/ and type Ingo Titze. Just a quick count puts his co-authors from 10-12 countries. Ingo Titze has had his finger in about every voice pie in the last 30-40 years. I am not talking about speech; speech is a much bigger field. If there is a subject about voice and Ingo Titze (hence NCVS, his creation) isn't mentioned, then information is lacking. (I just went to the ncvs.org website and looked at his bio, over 500 published articles in voice). If you then add other people who have gone through or been part of the NCVS in some form or another (U of Utah, U of Wisconsin, U of Iowa; the latter two battling for the top spot in U.S. News in the field for the last two decades) you have maybe over 80% of the top voice scientists. The 1990's was the NCVS's heyday when there really wasn't a trained voice scientist that didn't spend some time at the NCVS. That isnt so as much anymore but the influence is still vast. One quick example is that there is only one voice therapy which has been developed and shown to be 'efficacious' in the medical literature, that is LSVT and it was mostly developed and tested at the NCVS. There are lots of voice therapies, but non have yet been shown to be 'efficacious' in that way. Larynxdude (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding that I am trying to be pleasant about all this! I am not actually disputing Titze's prominence. That's not the point. The point is that as someone attached to NCSV you should not be adding internal and external links to that institution per WP's rules and guidelines. If the center is as important as you think it is to the voice field, then somebody else will add the appropriate links. Let them do it. BTW I would disagree with your comment about LSVT being the only voice treatment method proven as efficacious. See this randomized Scottish study published in the BMJ for example.[15] --Slp1 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SLP1. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Yes, the Scottish study was a nice study. Last I heard, I think they are still working on the data as they have had several abstracts and conference proceedings from it. However, while they used the word efficacy in the paper, I don't agree that they showed efficacy. They showed improvement and effect but to call it efficacy would be very loose definition of it.

The authors were not testing a single therapy, but just voice therapy overall. Can you test the efficacy of something without controlling the treatment? I don't think so. I believe they miss used the word and therefore lessened the value of their paper. Any other examples? Some colleagues and I did a pretty extensive lit review just a while back on efficacy and voice and it is slim, slim, slim.

To understand my perspective of voice therapy and efficacy, see this one (I have a pdf copy of it if you don't have access to it): Ruotsalainen JH, Sellman J, Lehto L, Jauhiainen M, Verbeek JH (2007). Interventions for preventing voice disorders in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 17;(4):CD006372.

On a lighter note, you seem to be very busy with wikipedia? How do you find the time to work?Larynxdude (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SLP1: let me give two quick examples of how voice research just is not represented well on the web. First, the most famous laryngologist that really started the field (Gould) has basically no presents on the web at all. Until he passed away during the U.S. Clinton Presidency, he had been the go to guy for the voice of the U.S. President since J.F. Kennedy. Another example; Three years ago, I attended a meeting with the representatives of 30 or so of the top 50 voice clinic/research labs around the world. They were discussing how to disseminate information quickly; I mentioned two online mediums, Wikipedia specifically and online forums generally. There were very few people in the room that had heard of Wikipedia and only one knew what an online forum was (he had run across one once asking about his boat). There are so few people in voice that (1) know what they are really talking about and (2) are online savy. Voice is a small field unlike the larger Speech Pathology field. I would be interested in your comments. Well, lunch is over, back to work.Larynxdude (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vocologist. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chzz ► 13:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]