Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Jfd, I'm having a problem understanding PMID 20717121. It is used in psilocybin , and I initially removed it, thinking it was a primary source, because it's not marked as a review in PubMed, then saw that it probably is a review (based on other factors), but then even later saw that it is characterized as "opinion" in the printed verion of the article. From reading the full article, it seems (??) that the authors summarize the findings to date only as a basis for then offering opinions as to mechanisms in mood disorders. Do you know anything about what it means for this journal to label an article as "opinion"? I owe Sasata a response on this, and I'm working on problems in other articles at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Psilocybin-- I'm stalled because I don't know what this article being labeled as "opinion" means relative to the different articles where we may mention psilocybin (cluster headaches, OCD, cancer, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. I won't be able to access the fulltext for a little while, but in general I am somewhat wary of "Opinion" articles as high-quality sources. They are secondary in character, but as you suggested they serve mainly as an overview of current research efforts and in proposing further steps in research. I will let you know when I've had a proper look at this. JFW | T@lk 14:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jfd-- I've no problem waiting, as I'm trying to sort the big picture (on several articles). If you have time, it would be optimal if you glanced at my sandbox. That particular article is also published under something they call "Perspectives". If there's a problem there, then we need to evaluate how to mention psilocybin in individual articles (I believe we are now giving undue weight in the treatment section of cluster headache and it should be moved to "Research") and we also need to give Sasata guidance at FA psilocybin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jfd. These sorts of articles may be appropriate for a section on research but nothing else really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I've now had a look. It looks like a pretty comprehensive review (almost 150 references) of the subject, so I'm surprised it's titled "Perspectives" (which journals often use to place a particular new study in a more general context). At the same time, one must be cautious about the strength of its proncouncements. Good scientists are very careful about making inferences and will use guarded language that weighs methodological strengths and weaknesses. The neurosciences literature is tremendously complex, and the popular press is very often utterly wrong when drawing conclusions from primary neurosciences research. JFW | T@lk 09:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much Jfd ... I started a whole discussion at WT:MED so we can all be on the same page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm the editor interested in emixustat hydrochloride. I see your point regarding the possibility of giving the impression that the drug could be FDA approved in the near future. Chemists find this molecule fascinating because it is the very first synthetic, oral medication that has been shown to affect the retina. As you know, injections for wet AMD exist--but nothing for oral delivery has ever demonstrated activity at Phase II. (Maybe more references are needed? ARVO did seem a good place to start.) I noticed that the previous sentence in the paragraph mentioned a "first" of a different type (stem cell therapy) that is still being tested. If emixustat evokes too much hope, then perhaps this one does, too? I do see that the language is more vague, though. I wonder... Would mention of this molecule be acceptable if specific references to clinical trials were omitted? Even if Phase III fails for this molecule, it is still a chemical marvel. I would not mind rewriting my edit in the least. Thanks!Global Microscope (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Global Microscope. This is a frequently-encountered issue on Wikipedia. I think I agree that we should not be giving the impression that stem cell therapy is "just around the corner". The media feeds off these predictions, and ultimately people lose faith in medical science because all those treatments ultimately don't deliver. Even stuff that we believed was obviously correct turns out to have been rubbish (see doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.295).

WP:MEDMOS allows for a section in medical articles that considers ongoing research. For research to be sufficiently notable for inclusion, it should be discussed in WP:MEDRS-compatible secondary sources. If there is discussion in secondary sources (e.g. recent reviews) then that might be an approach to take (and indeed the stem cell stuff should go there too). But abstracts at conferences are rarely suitable. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, Global Microscope, I have moved the stem cell stuff down to the "research directions" section, but it needs a better source. Do you have an interest in AMD? Because the whole article needs a fair bit of attention. Happy to assist, although this is not an area of particular expertise for me. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This might be a useful source for stem cells: doi:10.1242/dev.092270 and doi:10.1002/jcp.22814 JFW | T@lk 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads up about the Wiki sections WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. For what it's worth, I like your edits and restructuring--even if it did mean the removal of my "ah ha" moment. (Wry smile) That's OK...yes, I do happen to be interested in AMD, especially the chemistry and biology from a research standpoint. I'm not an expert, though; just a geologist with a background in chemistry and experimental work, and married to a chemist working in oncology. So all kinds of things spark our collective interest. Thanks for asking; I would be happy to take a closer look at other areas of the article and see if I can find better ways to contribute (including a peek at your reference up there). Very interesting indeed. (Thanks for responding!)Global Microscope (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	Thanks for adding translations and being involved with the project.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Per User:IZAK's suggestion I'd like to invite you to comment on the following discussion. Debresser (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Debresser. Responded there. JFW | T@lk 12:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am not clear why you removed the small contribution I entered on Metformin and prostate cancer. It appears that you are not happy with peer reviewed articles unless they are review articles? Is that correct? My reason for making the entry was to be of help to people with prostate cancer (or even concerned about it) who may not be aware that Metformin may be of benefit. My wording was such as to indicate that the reference I gave was just one study but there are others. I can search for a review article if that is what is deemed necessary but I understood that peer reviewed articles from highly respected journals were acceptable sources. I am not an experienced contributor so this may explain my confusion. It may even have been more appropriate to have attempted this edit under prostate cancer rather than Metformin as my intention is to be of assistance to men concerned about the condition. Your advice would be appreciated. EcoMindfulness 23:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugene Kelly (talk • contribs)

Hello Eugene Kelly. You are correct that for medical content we make a concerted effort to avoid primary sources. Single studies might have methodological weaknesses that we cannot expect the reader to spot personally; peer review still lets through poor quality research (as has been shown abundantly in recent years), and many results cannot be reproduced. There are numerous other reasons why the WP:MEDRS guidelines have been formulated.

This applies as much to metformin as it does to prostate cancer. The very best medical articles are built almost entirely on secondary sources. JFW | T@lk 06:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Beverley Hunt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• health/clinical.../air-travel-and-pregnancy</ref> produced in October 2001 and an advisor on the [ Royal College of Obstetricians guideline on: “Thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy” <ref>http://www.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your revert at Blood; since the edit was based on discussion at Talk:Blood#Blood_libel and the following section can you please join the discussion there? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyperkalemia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diuresis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dr. de Wolff,

This article captured my attention the other day (Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction) and I wanted to run it by you as it seems problematic and I don't know how things like this are usually handled. I thought you might be a good person to ask about this as your user page seems to indicate an interest in sourcing issues. Here are the issues as I see them.

• The entire article is based on roughly a dozen case reports of unclear causality, original research extrapolating from animal and in vitro studies, and a single review article
• The review article is of poor quality.
  • It consists mainly of a recap of the above case reports, a review of internet message board commentary, and some speculative re-interpretations of the results of clinical trials in premature ejaculation.
  • It was written by a student health center counselor with no apparent background in pharmacology, apparently as the sole publication on which he has served as lead author
  • It was published in a non-Pubmed indexed journal that requires evaluation by only a single peer reviewer. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/topsyj/articles/V001/42TOPSYJ.pdf

Given the limited number of case reports (many of which seem to come from a single academic group) and the complex interplay of physiological, psychological, and environmental factors in human sexual motivation, it seems to me that the evidence for the existence of this syndrome is fairly marginal. Even if real, I find it odd to have an entire article dedicated to a side effect reported in a dozen individuals among hundreds of millions who have taken these drugs.

But I am unfamiliar with the rules and processes here and did not know whether this would qualify for a request for article deletion, or if anything should be done at all. I'd appreciate your thoughts and advice.

Respectfully Formerly 98 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Formerly 98. The article (and the concept) suffers from a curse that affects a number of other community-generated medical concepts. A lot (and I mean a lot) of people have recognised a change in their sexual responsiveness in the context of taking SSRIs. Of course the conditions that require SSRIs themselves have their own impact on this, and clearly very few research groups have made an effort to deal with this in a methodologically sound way. That means that, as you have noticed, the sources fail WP:MEDRS in quite a bad way. Meanwhile, we have an article that might reflect the experiences of people (and their doctors) who believe this association exists, but encyclopedically falls well short of expectations.

I have personally wasted too much time trying to fix walled gardens of ascientific articles, but if you have the energy you could try one of the following: (1) Be bold and strip away anything in the article that you believe does not belong in an encyclopedia (this means potentially only a stub remaining), (2) be even bolder and merge whatever is salvageable into the main SSRI article, turning the current article into a redirect, (3) be the boldest of all and send the article to articles for deletion, if you believe it shouldn't exist at all. JFW | T@lk 17:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the effect of SSRIs on sexual function are pretty well established, but I haven't found anything in the literature to support long-term post treatment effects. Maybe its real, after all, the original trials of Prozac listed only 10% sexual dysfunction AEs, and current estimates say 40%. In any case, I took the leap of nominating the article for deletion, just on the basis that lots of things might be true, but they probably don't belong here while they are still speculative.

I guess we'll see what happens. Probably I'll just aggravate some people, but who knows? Thanks for your help Formerly 98 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98, aggravating people seems to be part of the process. Not everyone liked what Diderot & D'Alembert wrote. If you need wisdom, have a look at WP:RAUL. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, its a very good essay.

The single point in the essay that I would be interested to hear more about is the "astroturfing" issue. I see these warnings about corporate manipulation of the site quite often, but its hard for me to get a feeling about how bad it really is. When I went to the Pharmacology Project page a few weeks back to raise the issue of the Fluoroquinolone articles, I saw a warning to be suspicious that anyone deleting adverse drug effect descriptions was a corporate sockpuppet. The statement cited the blog of a well-known industry critic, who in turn cited the blog of a second industry critic, who described 2 events that occurred over 8 years ago without providing any supporting documentation. But much more recently (2009-11), the fluoroquinolone articles were not only edited but were completely dominated by the leader of an organization "supporting those seeking financial compensation for fluoroquinolone-related injuries", and no one seems to have intervened in that situation, with respect to either the COI or the egregious (in my opinion) MEDRS and OR violations that were taking place. (I initially commented on this at the Pharmacology Project Talk page, but deleted these remarks because at the time I was worried that they would result in my IP address would be blocked for suspicion of being a corporate sockpuppet).

To me it would seem to make sense to generically warn against all efforts to use the encyclopedia to promote a specific POV, and to enforce policies on COI with equal rigor no matter what COI is involved, but maybe its just that I don't see all the data that the administrators see.

Your thoughts? Formerly 98 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98 I think you should be able to make edits to drug articles if they are aligned with Wikipedia policy. Your COI is declared and open for all to see, but it bears remembering that "well-known industry critic[s]" have just as much a COI, and yet seem to encounter a lesser degree of scrutiny (even when they are pushing for compensation). I haven't watched the fluoroquinolone saga, so I cannot comment on particulars.

I would be happy to support edits that replace poorly sourced content with high-quality well sourced information that people can actually trust. JFW | T@lk 21:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Have made changes. Will get back to hypothyroidism hopefully tonight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 Will look at the changes in the next few days. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Finished the review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting those other points Jfd. I was going to look up the data on the medications today but you be me to it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Epilepsy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syncope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The article Hypothyroidism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hypothyroidism for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jmh649 -- Jmh649 (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to stop by and thank you for all of your help with the article. It would have been far more difficult doing it by myself and it was helpful working with someone so experienced. Thanks again and I hope we can work together on other articles. If you have any in mind, feel free to tell me anytime :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 Thanks very much for picking up the review.

TylerDurden8823 I think I owe you my thanks for giving me something to do over the rather quiet winter holiday period. I needed to get back into article work, and the hypothyroidism article gave a great impetus for getting something done. I'm thinking of updating some of my older GAs (idiopathic intracranial hypertension and pneumothorax) and getting them ready for FAC. Both have lists of potential great references on the talk page and I will probably start on one of them within the next week or so. JFW | T@lk 11:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure as always. Would consider sending pneumothorax for translation. If you would be interested in taking on any of these Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/Popular_pages it would be much appreciated :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 You're trying to tempt me to write Sepsis, aren't you? Give me some time - I need to do some sepsis-related writing for work soon. JFW | T@lk 11:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes that would be perfect. There is a the new IDSA guidelines just out :-) Lots to work with. And I am happy to help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Hypothyroidism (estimated annual readership: 1,216,180) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Bobnorwal (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I just gave one of these to TylerDurden8823, too. You guys did a great job getting that article to GA status. It's nice to see such collaboration -- and on such an important topic. I hope this little "award" lets you know that I (and others) appreciate your effort! Bobnorwal (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bobnorwal, thanks very much for that and I agree that TylerDurden8823's work is worthy of recognition! JFW | T@lk 07:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! You participated in an RFC/U concerning User:QuackGuru in 2011. There is a new RFC/U on for the same user at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2, and your input would be welcome. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain why you reverted my edit adding an article citation on the Respiratory failure article? I'm fairly new to editing medical articles but this source is from a peer-reviewed, notable, journal. Thanks! OR drohowa (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello OR drohowa. It was a very old citation from the 1960s that would be relevant from a historical perspective (it basically describes the development of intensive care medicine) but it is not a WP:MEDRS source for the statement that defines respiratory failure. Have a look at MEDRS, because it contains useful guidance on how to select sources. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jfd. Can you mark the table here for which articles should and should not be translated. [2] Do not want to translate articles that are already really good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but generally the Dutch medical articles are much poorer in comprehensiveness and sourcing than the English equivalent. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Wanted to ask about the following image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Eicosanoid_synthesis.svg/320px-Eicosanoid_synthesis.svg.png My question is detailed below, thanks: The section's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachidonic_acid#Synthesis_and_cascade) first sentence states the following: "[arachidonic acid] can also be generated from DAG by diacylglycerol lipase." Soon thereafter, the PLC activation section states: "arachidonic acid may be cleaved from phospholipids by phospholipase C (PLC), yielding diacylglycerol (DAG) which subsequently is cleaved by DAG lipase to yield arachidonic acid." These sentences do not conflict, however I feel the image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Eicosanoid_synthesis.svg/2000px-Eicosanoid_synthesis.svg.png is somewhat misleading as it may be interpreted as PLC acting on DAG to make AA, when this states that PLC acts on phospholipids to make DAG. Are the statements quoted above accurate, or am I misunderstanding this page and/or the diagram image? Thanks, Vokesk (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Vokesk, I cannot tell you with certainty if the image or the text are correct. I drew the image many years ago from several reliable sources, but it might be that the article text provides somewhat more detail about the intermediate steps of arachidonic acid synthesis. I'd be grateful if you could let me know if the image is incorrect! JFW | T@lk 13:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sir: It was your article, and we are all concerned with truth here at Wiki, but I added this as a continuing patient for 10 years with developing, serious neuropathy in my feet. Really no need for a reference, or even an education (though I do have one, not in Medicine). Yet ultimately all references will ultimately end at an individual, anyway? Pressure has been my main sensation with neuropathy, even with serious pain medications. Without the latter [I aggravated the condition, unwittingly, in the early part of the last decade, by physical exercise of various sorts.] there would be burning sensations, problems with touch, etc. I have to be careful, everyday, with how much physical activity I take in. - J. G. Lewis

Hello John G. Lewis. I am very sorry to hear you find yourself restricted by your symptoms.

The trouble with your edit[3] was twofold. Firstly, it gave the impression that the concept about pressure was discussed in the source (Paice JA, 2003) currently supporting that section. Secondly, seeing that it probably was not in the source, it would amount to original research to refer to personal experience. While the truth is the ultimate goal of all reference works, we require high-quality secondary sources for everything we write.

Kind regards. JFW | T@lk 07:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff,

Your comment for your "undo" seems to indicate that you didn't read the article. There have been human trials on 3yo-11yo children, in two distinct types of autism, both showing improvement. The article also makes clear that this new use is by medical researchers, not some conspiracy-theorist nutjob dreaming up nonsense in her Malibu estate. 60.248.2.163 (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You've got me wrong. "Autism-related brain disorders" in animals are not the same as autism in humans. "Valproate and fragile X rodent models of autism" are rough models that are hypothesis-generating at best. Similarly, pilot studies are not the same as properly powered trials that will lead to a change in practice.

For "Research" sections, we try to avoid primary sources in favour of reviews and textbooks. After all, much research won't eventually make it into clinical practice. JFW | T@lk 13:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So, medical journal articles, from respected peer-reviewed journals, are not considered "reliable sources" for medical articles? Also, just to reiterate, SOME of the studies were on HUMAN CHILDREN, in ADDITION to the studies on animals.

I don't particularly mind digging out medical journal articles, just wondering if you're going to cause me to waste my time by deleting the information after I go through all the trouble of editing it into place. 60.248.2.163 (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Phase I/II trials are interesting for a scientist, but for the general readership they are less relevant because most will never progress to phase III let alone routine clinical use.

I don't make the rules, but WP:MEDRS (the guideline that governs medical sourcing) strongly discourages primary sources for a large number of very sensible reasons. JFW | T@lk 14:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So, I read through that Wikipedia:MEDRS thing you linked. I am not seeing anything about "strongly discourages primary sources", instead it says "Peer reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles. They contain a mixture of primary and secondary sources." This being relatively new research, it's not going to have the review type articles yet -- maybe in another five or ten years. Does that mean "zomfg we can't put it in yet because it hasn't been confirmed by forty different studies!!!"? 60.248.2.163 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the last paragraph of the "Definitions" section, which is less ambiguous than what you just quoted.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so it's not our job to predict the possible outcome of studies that might or might not happen in the next 5-10 years. JFW | T@lk 15:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seems silly not to be allowable to update articles with cutting-edge research topics, though. 60.248.2.163 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The research is fascinating. But as an encyclopedia we've had to choose between being a news resource or offering thoroughly reliable information. As you surely understand, some things take some time to settle down in a pattern. Thanks for bearing with me & keep an eye out for secondary sources. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Atorvastatin page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Dr Wolff,

I had identified the same problem as you.

I have already added a section to the 'talk page' in order to start trying to build some consensus. Another user had sent a message to "ScienceWatcher" who had been making wholesale removals of content added by others and recommended this step.

I have tried to keep the baseline simple and easy to agree with and look forward to your comments.

May I ask what your field of medicine is and your special interest in this disease?

--Leopardtail (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Leopardtail. I have responded on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome and look forward to your response there. You can see my professional interests on my userpage. JFW | T@lk 20:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you changed the source from shown effective, to "may be effective". It is my understanding from the tone of the article and the primary sources that it cites that is was "shown" effective multiple times with certain journal papers recommending its use. I'm curious what passages in the paper lead you to change the wording. Thanks!Gsonnenf (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Gsonnenf Depends on how you interpret "may". Not everyone with the named conditions will invariably respond, so in that sense "may" is the correct word. I have no problem if you change it back. With regards to describing the source, WP:MEDMOS suggests avoid. JFW | T@lk 19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I generally interpret may as there being unsure, usually when statistical differences are small or when results are promising but sparse. The article is question uses phrases like "Terpinen-4-ol is a potent agent against methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and coagulasenegative staphylococcus (CoNS).", "Tea tree oil has been shown to be efficient in the treatment of hand warts caused by human papillomavirus (HPV),"Tea tree oil preparations are extensively used as topical treatments for the control of skin bacteria involved in acne...This study demonstrated that topical 5% TTO is effective in the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris."

Anyway thanks for listening and being nice about it.Gsonnenf (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nice to meet you today. Granta03 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Granta03, nice to meet you too! I hope the session has been informative and am looking forward to your contributions! JFW | T@lk 13:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, nice to meet you today and thank you for your message! T27.zaman (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dr Wolff,

I will gladly co-operate with everybody on here to produce an agreeable page. You have however justified removal of multiple edits using Wiki rules that those of you supporting a strong pro CBT stance are not adhering to yourselves.

Multiple of you have made significant edits without using Talk first. From the point I got the gist of this I have not done so. Indeed I have posted two items in talk today for consideration.

I have also made my self aware of the rules and protocols today and will hold you to your own standard :-)

I have indicated which Wiki rules this reference broke in chat and chose the smallest edit possible to make it compliant. I did so without changing the sense of the material.

I am trying to proceed softly, but that takes two. I will not be bullied or accept non-factual material. You should be aware I am biochem researcher in this field not a patient - my knowledge of research in this field is extensive. I also have involvement in two support groups with circa sixty people in them - the fact that I have not challenged some suppositions regarding my background does not mean your collective assumptions are correct. I am also not averse to proper use of psychological interventions in the way that some in the bio-chem field are. My current project is in point of fact ripping apart and testing some viewpoints in the mitchondrial field to see if they pass muster - please do not assume my insistence on separating fact from opinion is limited to one discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs)

There's no reason you cannot hold up a mirror at current editors, but I'm afraid you have come to an article with a long history of intense disagreement, and there are a number of editors who have worked for years on forming consensus on the way certain aspects should be covered. Your self-declared background (thanks for the openness) puts you quite firmly in a particular camp, and I will readily acknowledge that while I keep an open mind about physical causes I am concerned about the lack of scientific and intellectual rigour of many of the reports. There is a lot of friction between science and ideology here (as with a number of other debated conditions).

On the talk page I have mentioned WP:BRD and avoiding repeated reversions of the same edit. I would urge you to follow this advice. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I raised a further point earlier re one study because I could not read it clearly enough, I thought it required polish. Ward20 indicated it should be removed, I do not wish to do this without firm consensus, hence your opinion please.

with best regards,

B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs)

Ward20 points out that the source does not explicitly mention the absence of physical illness, so suggesting this amounts to WP:NOR. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

In this discussion I believe Leopardtail is referring to a talk page comment[4] about removing the Support Groups section which is sourced by a single primary study. If current secondary sources can be found to support the material that would be a better situation. Ward20 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Jacob, thanks for your presentation and valuable assistance to newcomers in the Wellcome Library editathon. Your talk was highly praised in the evaluation forms and the participants seem genuinely inspired to contribute. I hope we'll meet again for similar events. Many thanks once again. MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

MartinPoulter Jisc Thanks! It was a great day. JFW | T@lk 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the advice. Coagulation Talk updated :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franzbischoff (talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr Wolff,

You currently appear to be enforcing a 'locked consensus' through reversion. The issue of edit warring has yet again occurred on the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome page. In order to facilitate the development of consensus I ask you (along with myself and others) to use the dubious reference tags and disputed content tags and engage in active debate with a view to forming a 'new consensus'. This is the most common practice on other pages I edit with similar disputes and seems to produce more stable content and faster consensus. The practice also allows the wider community to contribute to debate/improvement with greater effectiveness.

You currently appear to edit warring on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Leopardtail New consensus is formed by having a discussion, not by slapping tags on stuff. I encourage you to use the talk page. I am not planning to have a long discussion with you here. Slow edit wars, with multiple reverts a day, eventually lead to the page being protected. That way, the only option is to use the talk page. I am happy to apply for protection on WP:RFPP if you so desire.

If you want to challenge content, open a discussion with sound arguments why it should be changed. Await responses. If everyone agrees, make the edit. If everyone disagrees, consider this one lost and move on.

If you want to expand the current content, open a discussion with sound arguments why it should be added. Await responses. If everyone agrees, make the edit. If everyone disagrees, consider this one lost and move on. JFW | T@lk 17:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jfd, thanks for reviewing, I'll make the necessary adjustments within the next few days and we'll reassess after I've completed them. I also wanted to say thanks for fixing the bit about autoimmunity. I didn't have access to the NEJM paper, so I didn't remove what was there because I couldn't verify what it said even though most articles I came across did seem to say it's regarded as an autoimmune condition. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi TylerDurden8823. Did you manage to get access in the end? If there is a conflict between the sources we probably need to give both sides of the story.

I hope my GAC comments are not too excessive. You've done a fine job on the article (almost single-handedly) and I trust that GA is just around the corner. JFW | T@lk 21:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jfd, the comments weren't excessive. I'm just a bit preoccupied at the moment, but I will attend to it soon and make the necessary adjustments. I'll recheck if I have access (I don't think I do, but I could be mistaken) and I'll let you know if I can verify what the article says. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

When you're ready, have another look at Psoriasis. It's not quite done, but almost. Just a few more tweaks needed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 I will try to do a second review in the next few days. I'm quite busy in meatspace so potentially early next week unless things quieten down. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No rush, just letting you know. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ready to have another look? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 Yes will hopefully manage within the next 48h. JFW | T@lk 11:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks buddy, I couldn't have done it without you. You were a huge help and seeing how you reviewed the article gave me a lot to think about for how I will work on future articles. I definitely appreciate your expertise and your guiding influence as always. I'm glad you were able to help me despite having real life things to deal with. If there are any projects you want to work on together at any time, you know how to reach me and I always enjoy collaborating with you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No idea glucagon was so poorly evidenced for esophageal food bolus obstruction but not surprised to be honest. Hope you are keeping well. Did you see our shout out in the BMJ? Samir 03:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Samir. Do you mean doi:10.1136/bmj.g1585 and the excellent response by Bluerasberry? Yes. Even the 2008 abstract got referenced! JFW | T@lk 21:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Bah. Anesthesiologists have way too much time on their hands. Plus, they're all a little nuts, probably as a result of passive sevoflurane inhalation or something. MastCell ^Talk 23:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for laying a foundation by means of which others can follow. Without you guys publishing first the main research would not have been done till years later and my piece would have looked more like the coffeehouse manifesto it is. I appreciate your being with me and I was fortunate to be in a place where I could respond, hopefully conveying a community perspective. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

are also 10 historical commandments from DDR system http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gebote_f%C3%BCr_den_neuen_sozialistischen_Menschen

Out of german 10 gebote article but strange not working picture link [Datei:Rahlwes 10 Gebote.jpg|miniatur|Rahlwes 10 Gebote (auf Deutsch)]] [File:Rahlwes 10 Gebote.jpg|thumb|Rahlwes 10 Gebote (auf Deutsch)ADDABLE TRANSLATION]]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gebote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.151.192.67 (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The article Drug has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

April fools day

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. [[User:A915|A915]] a (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to help. It will be hard to recruit surgeons... Best regards. Humpath (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a crack at my question about Wikipedia monitors? I would appreciate any information you might have IiKkEe (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What are these? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jmh649. I think IiKkEe is curious about the reviewing of edits by other contributors, and what happens to unsourced statements. I have responded on his talk page. JFW | T@lk 15:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

• Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology 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 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!
• You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
• Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
• To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
• To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
• You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Diptanshu.D. Have signed up. I seem to be the first! JFW | T@lk 12:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for coming. Your experience is needed here. Diptanshu^Talk 12:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear JFW, Thank you for your response on IZAK's talk page. As you can see from this talk page and also from the article itself, a certain user, who logs under his own name as well as various IP addresses, is on a mission to "correct" the facts in this article to suit his own recollections, as he was a key player in the formation of the Street Artists Program and wants the history to reflect his involvement at every turn. When the sources contradict his opinion or his desire, he claims they are biased, and constantly reverts sourced content even after being warned not to. Two vandalism administrators have reverted his edits more than once and attempted to explain the importance of building consensus on the talk page, but he continues to ignore everyone and revert again and again. It appears he will not stop his activities until he is banned from the page altogether. My question is whether I should submit a report on ANI itself, or whether I should choose one of the more specialized noticeboards, like WP:COIN. Thank you for your help, Yoninah (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yoninah I'd go for ANI, because he is using multiple accounts. Easy. JFW | T@lk 11:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Yoninah (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious that the Mayo Clinic, the largest non-profit hospital setting in the world is NOT an acceptable source for Guillain-Barré Syndrome information? Regards Aloha27 (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Aloha27 There are several reasons why we employ such a rigorous policy. I would be grateful if you could review WP:MEDRS.

The internet pages produced by the Mayo Clinic are not themselves referenced to the scientific literature, and while it's bound not to contain major errors, its peer review process is not explicit. The content may also change. The bits of the article currently having {{citation needed}} tags should be referenced to high-quality secondary sources (journal reviews, medical textbooks).

At any rate, thanks for trying to find sources for this article! JFW | T@lk 15:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have found this book to be tremendously useful in my own recovery from GBS as it covers the entire journey from (strangely enough) diagnosis to recovery. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=sGTZA8_CF78C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Joel+S.+Steinberg+MD,+PhD,+FICA%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kixhU-DhHMusyASvwYHgCA&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) Virtually every citation needed tag is referenced here but am wondering if these authors would be considered an acceptable source or even how to incorporate it into the article. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys! JFW | T@lk 20:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a little editing on the MRSA article this AM. Although I think the edit is fine, to avoid the appearance of impropriety I felt I should inform an admin of my activity, as I worked on the linezolid program at Upjohn.

Please feel free to make any changes you feel are needed. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Formerly 98. It is a great edit that updates dubious content with something sourced to a great secondary source. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, I figured it was probably ok, wanted to keep everything on the up and up appearance-wise. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have time, could you take a quick look at the dispute on the Chronic fatigue syndrome treatment page? --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Disseminated intravascular coagulation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trauma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

Hello, Jfdwolff! Long time so see. I've restarted a GA nomination of azathioprine, wonder if you have time to do a review again? Thanks.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jsjsjs1111. I have been very busy in meatspace so I don't think I will be able to offer a review, but please keep me informed. JFW | T@lk 10:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for setting this straight. While reviewing recent edits, I saw the previous addition. My first reaction was that it was irrelevant to the article and I almost reverted it. Then I thought I would look for a reference to see whether it was accurate. I thought that might make it of some interest. Obviously, I was not approaching this as an expert but simply as a matter of concern with the previous edit. I see my initial inclination was right. My decision turned out to be wrong. Again, thanks for fixing this. Donner60 (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Donner60, thanks for the update. The source currently supporting the claims on the incidence of HSP & Kawasaki disease is a primary research study, so ideally it should be replaced with a secondary source. I will look into it. JFW | T@lk 06:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to note that specifically and did not want to leave the impression I missed that point altogether. I also did not intend to throw some work to someone else. However, I must admit that someone with more knowledge of the subject would make a better contribution. Donner60 (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. My apologies, I forgot to sign my username when making the edit in a new section named "Criticism and Controversy". I am still new to Wikipedia and have just started making more complicated edits (aside from grammar and citations). Could you please cite where Wikipedia discourages this section? I have seen it used on other Wikipedia pages; is this specifically discouraged for medical Wikipedia pages? Also, I would appreciate your feedback on some of the citations that have been used for this page (for example, citation 23) which have improperly been cited and are also links to blogs (which are not substantial sources according to Wikipedia). Could you please take a look and give me feedback? I would like to replace these links with verifiable sources. Thank you so much for your help! Presto808 (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Presto808 The relevant guidance is at WP:CRITS. I agree that all sources should meet the guidance on WP:MEDRS, which means that blogs are almost universally discouraged (unless there is a secondary source supporting the importance of said blog). JFW | T@lk 07:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jfdwolff Thank you for your prompt reply. I will start working on this next week. I would appreciate your looking out for my future edits and providing any feedback. Cheers! Presto808 (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Would it be correct to link fractured vertebra to compression fracture? Is this the kind of injury Neymar suffered (CT scan)? I am asking because you created the redirect vertebral fracture. Thanks in advance. --87.157.212.249 (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The redirect is not entirely correct, because there are other kids of vertebral fracture that are not primarily compression related. The majority of vertebral fractures are osteoporotic compression fractures. JFW | T@lk 22:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jfd, I think I found an agreeable solution for the prognosis section issue on the psoriasis page. The second sentence written by the IP user was incorrect since even mild psoriasis has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity/mortality (e.g., as seen in this review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23557749) so I removed that, but I found a reference to verify the first sentence (which had the citation needed template). When you have a chance, take a look and let me know if you think that's better or if more needs to be done. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Good work, many thanks. I knew that you still had the sources at your fingertips from the time of the GAC! JFW | T@lk 11:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, how much more work do you think it would take to get it to FA? I've never gotten an article to FA, so I'd appreciate your input. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 I don't know. WP:WIAFA is what you need to read. I am still a bit paranoid about FAC after my latest attempt with pneumothorax, and I am now focusing mostly on getting articles to GA status. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jfd, that's okay. I'll be sure to take a look at what you suggested. I did glance over pneumothorax but I'll take a more in-depth look later. I usually do GA status too, but I'd like to follow through with some of these articles I've been working on and get them to FA if possible. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your lovely peer review! Keilana|Parlez ici 19:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Keilana You're welcome. Stroopwafels were an absolute hit at Wikimania 2014! JFW | T@lk 20:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes they were! I think we ate over 2000... I brought some home for my family since they've never had any :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Keilana Does that mean you're in London? We missed each other then. JFW | T@lk 21:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jacob. Sorry about the IP mask. We did meet at Coventry a couple of years back, and I am sorry not to have got to see you again at Wikimania -- I asked Doc James to give you my regards. At the moment, I'm doing my best to use my background in medical writing to help improve the esophageal cancer, as part of the project that Wiki CRUK John is co-ordinating. Best wishes, 86.157.144.73 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Alkaptonuria page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I made quite a few changes to the G6PDD page including a supportive link for AKI and hope you will go over my work and either approve or revert it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlwinkler (talk • contribs) 09:47, 25 August 2014‎

Davidlwinkler I will respond on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 09:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

On [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 I'm not sure why body mass index should be singled out so prominently. JFW | T@lk 17:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It originally said "cannot be used". An IP changed it to "can" [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 Thanks for the clarification. I tweaked it further because it might be relevant to explain how the distinction is made. There's lots of recent literature about an asthma/COPD overlap state, but this is probably not the right context to discuss it. JFW | T@lk 07:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heart failure may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
}} be considered to reduce the risk of severe life-threatening arrhythmias. A select population (LVEF <35% and evidence of abnormal conduction on ECG or echocardiogram) will also probably benefit from [[ * ADHERE Tree rule indicates that patients with [[blood urea nitrogen]] < 43&nbsp;mg/dl and [[systolic blood pressure]] at least 115&nbsp;mm Hg have less than 10%

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Latent tuberculosis page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This text [10] argues that:

motor neuron disease is ALS plus a couple of others

motor neuron diseases is the large group.

This we should probably have a page on each. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We also have [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 I am puzzled by the redirect Motor neurone disease and the fact that we have motor neuron disease serving as a "de facto" disambiguation page.

I know too little about its management to say for certain whether the reader is best served by a single large umbrella article (as we do with Guillain-Barré syndrome) or whether we need detailed articles on the subtypes and only a placeholder disambiguation article for the diagnostic category. My intuition is that people would benefit more from a large article that covers ALS but also explains how the other forms of MND can have a different presentation and disease course. JFW | T@lk 15:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tag, you're it! WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I might struggle this week, but the Lancet and NEJM articles are traveling with me every day in case I find the time. Where could I find a copy of the source you added? JFW | T@lk 22:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Whenever you have time is fine with me. I just wanted to make sure you knew that I hadn't abandoned the idea of helping you.

It's the NICE guideline, Version 1.2013. I'm looking at the "MS" (manuscript?) pages towards the end rather than the flow charts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing my return. Your warm welcome was very kind and much appreciated. Best wishes! Gaussgauss (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. Wikimedia UK received an enquiry this morning from a medical journal keen to speak with a UK medical practitioner who works to improve Wikipedia content. Someone recommended I get in touch, hence this little note. Would you be interested in speaking with them? Could be a really good story. If you're happy to be involved, please do drop me an email - stevie.bentonwikimedia.org.uk. Thank you! Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I give up trying to help rare disease patients find each other. The information they receive on their rare disease from Wikipedia will never be up to date or relevant, as hard as you might try. Besides finding a specialist doctor, online communities are one of the few places where people can find up to date and relevant information: from other people living with the disease. Some of you Wikipedians allow links to patient groups, our online communities are created, supported, and moderated by patient groups. So it would seem you should start deleting all patient group links from Wikipedia articles since Wikipedia "is not a collection of links" Thanks for blocking people's access to information in the name of your ego and respecting "Wikipedia principles" — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobP46 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

RobP46 Yes, we should be deleting links to patient communities that are not official representative bodies with formal oversight. Communities can be found on Google and DMOZ, but they are not necessarily moderated and can also be sources of disinformation. Wikipedia cannot take responsibility for that.

You should not presume that all those people who remove your links have problems with their ego. That is a personal attack and a poor excuse for rational argument. Good day. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, in regard to mention of "collapsed lung" on pneumothorax, I have since read the talk page, and I appreciate the difference in terms (despite Mayo clinic and Medline rendering the terms equivalent). However, "collapsed lung" currently redirects to the pneumothorax article, in which case something needs to be clarified upfront. I have added a new edit which I hope is acceptable. If not, I hope we can modify it and not simply revert it. Cheers RichG (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

RichG Thanks. I have refined your addition. The colloquialism "collapsed lung" indeed refers to pneumothorax, although when a doctor sees atelectasis on a chest X-ray (s)he will refer to it as "an area of collapse". The distinction is made by the presence of air in the pleural cavity (pneumo = air, thorax = chest cavity). People with a significant pneumothorax will have definite atelectasis of the lung because there's not enough space in the chest for the lung to be fully inflated! JFW | T@lk 11:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Super, thanks I appreciate your response RichG (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You wrote:

On multiple sclerosis you added a table listing the sales of individual drugs used for that condition. This is somewhat unusual, and certainly doesn't have a precedent. I don't think it is very useful for the general reader. As such, I have temporarily removed the content. If you wish to discuss this further, consider starting a thread on Talk:Multiple sclerosis.

For now I have not removed a similar table on chemotherapy, because one could argue that it is more informative. Still, others may feel differently. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added a comment in the Talk section: Please can you state your opinion also there to discuss the topic? --LamasUI (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. Is there a tool that does this for DOI refs? The software (browsers etc) we can use here are annoyingly restricted for security reasons, but even at home I don't currently have a tool that works for DOIs (PubMed is fine). As you know, most of the old "independent" tools have dropped out. It's a bit crazy. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wiki CRUK John I wish we had a better template filler. I would go further and say that the reason this doesn't work is massively offputting to medical contributors.

Most articles with DOIs also have PMIDs, so I sometimes use the DOI to search Pubmed and then use the PMID to fill the template using Diberri's tool. Generally, this works. I then still have to manually populate the URL field if the article is free. JFW | T@lk 12:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I agree it is a ridiculous and damaging situation, and most unhelpful when you are training people. I'm able to get stuff straight away on or before publication - I had that article on an embargoed press basis before you did - and I often find there's no PMID, as presumably they take a while to be set up. I can't imagine a new tool would be the most complicated piece of programming for those who do such things. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

For quite a while it was possible to insert the {{cite journal}} template from the editing toolbar. It would automatically populate the fields after a DOI was inserted. The performance has been really patchy on some browsers and I don't rely it now.

Perhaps the WikiProject Med Foundation might consider commissioning a failsafe template filler. I must ask Jmh649 if that would fall within the Foundation's remit. JFW | T@lk#

no the toolbar doesn't work for me, from DOIs. Anywhere, I think. Or ask WhatamIdoing Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The toolbar with cite journal works for me using the standard vector skin on Chrome, Firefox and Opera as long as I put in just the doi numbers like "10.1161%2FCIRCULATIONAHA" because it's not smart enough to strip extraneous characters like 'doi'. It doesn't work on my old monobook skin but I have an ancient interface that drops down a form inline to add citations, rather than the newer popup form (I can't even remember what gadget does that). I wouldn't be surprised if it malfunctioned using IE. My guess is that a feature that mostly works with the standard interface and standards-compliant browsers is quite unlikely to receive any priority from WMF developers. I must admit that I tend to convert {{cite doi}} by reading the PMID from its output and popping it into http://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi as that does a better job and gives me more options. If there's no PMID available yet, then there's really no point in using anything other than the doi. Somebody can always come along later and upgrade it to a 'proper' citation. --RexxS (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

mw:Citoid is underway and may be ready for production in a few months. That will allow you to take a URL like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25050137 and turn it into this in two clicks. It's not perfect at the moment, partly because the current testing tool is entirely URL-based instead of doi- or PMID-based (in this case, it omits the PMID and uses the URL), but the diff should give you a feel for the overall goal.

The initial work is being done in VisualEditor, but it will eventually work everywhere (even outside Wikipedia, if someone wanted to set it up locally). One of the major goals is to have it available at all the Wikipedias. Most of the local scripts are only available at en.wp, and some of them have maintenance problems. If you'd like to try out Citoid in VisualEditor, then replicate this edit in your common.js file. (You'll have to turn on VisualEditor in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures, if you haven't already.) The user script will add a new line, "Cite by URL" to the Cite menu. All you have to do is paste in your URL and click to insert the reference. It's very "pre-alpha", and the server occasionally falls over, but it's working pretty well for PubMed refs. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my accidental revert, and apologies for making it. The result of trying to read my Watchlist on an iPhone while driving. Euryalus (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

sign up for monthly delivery

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Wolf, We need to have a serious talk about Asthma. Have you done any reading about ASTHMA? The Beta Adrenergic Theory is the ONLY Theory of Asthma that can be associated with one name {not including crackpots} so your question about other names insults my intelligence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not only that but in contrast to other theories this one has been cited more than any other article in the history of the Journal of Allergy according to the GARFIELED LIBRARY at The University of Pennsylvania. Last but not least, my comment would be out of place in the history section because it relates DIRECTLY to the BA2 polymorphism. Since other polymorphisms CANNOT be related to a specific theory, much less to a specific individual, your comment doesn't make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrade Glendenning (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you seem to have a typo or two. That should be a "D" at the start and two "f"s at the end, to correctly spell "Dr. Wolff".

You may have misunderstood the question at Talk:Asthma. The question is whether, in looking over the article, you saw any researchers being mentioned by name outside the history section. The implication is that if nobody at all is getting "advertised" in the scientific or medical parts of the article, then mentioning your favorite researcher there is not appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Belgrade Glendenning I don't think you're going to get very far on Wikipedia unless you get used to communicating better with other users. Remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks are key policies.

I don't dispute the fact that Szentivanyi may have contributed to the understanding of asthma, but I am unsure why is should be presented in the way that it was. I tried to explain in the edit summary and on the talk page that you needed to look at this, but instead I'm receiving a barrage of muscular language. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You won't back down. Right? You know absolutely nothing about what you edit, don't want to be educated, and prefer to hide behind Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrade Glendenning (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Belgrade Glendenning. This is not a matter of backing down. You are adding a very prominent mention of one particular scientist by name, which goes quite against the style of the article. That was the predominant reason for my response to your edit. I am disappointed by the fact that you continue using harsh language, because it shows that you thoroughly misunderstand the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 19:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

sorry if this is the wrong place jfdwolff. In dental implants section I provided a really nice Cat Scan image that was removed and replaced by a Canadian dental practice. I object but wanted to speak with you first bc there is no added benefit with the replacement. DentalSchoolProfessor (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)dentalschoolprofessor

Since this comment is directed at Jfdwolff, I've removed the helpme template. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 01:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Responding on User talk:DentalSchoolProfessor. JFW | T@lk 14:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jfdwolff - I responded to your comments on my talk page but am not sure how to route my responses directly to you. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. Pharmer8 (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Pharmer8 I will respond on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 13:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not acceptable way for any editor, never mind an admin, to respond to another editor who has legitimate concerns about that editor's behaviour. Clearly what I had to say wasn't completely ignored or valueless: My request that if he wishes no editor to make changes without prior consensus then that should apply to him too, was responded with by a self-revert and a talk page request for adding text. While the self-revert is a good sign, there's no reason Epilepsy should become one of those contentious articles that can only be edited under mediation, and I certainly have better things to do with my free time than to work under that kind of cloud. Hey, editing Wikipedia used to be fun... -- Colin°^Talk 20:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't voted in that RFC but rather had just explained what information you would like the article to cover. Voting just polarises debate and brings little understanding. I think you should review the section WAID started and my recent comments here and consider if it would be better in fact if we organised aspects of both epilepsy mechanisms and seizure mechanisms around cause and seizure type rather than an independent top level section. The discussion is certainly converging on that direction, except in James's mind, of course. -- Colin°^Talk 12:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"The discussion is converging on that direction" Ah no Jophiel and yourself are pushing in that direction. I do not see support from anyone else for that change.

The reason I requested that you no longer post on my talk page is you more or less post the same things in other places were I can read it already. User:Colin if you wish to get me banned take it to ANI or ARBCOM. Yes I agree editing Wikipedia used to be fun, and it usually still is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, I'm not going to insult you by having an argument with James on your talk page. -- Colin°^Talk 12:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 and Colin. Apologies to the radio silence. A religious holiday has intervened. I will monitor the discussion on Talk:Epilepsy. Incidentally, the vote contained a simultaneous opinion as to what a "Mechanism" section should be covering. JFW | T@lk 22:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your thorough reviews on endometrial cancer! I could not be more grateful for your help. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

Dear mister Jfdwolff, My name is Maryam, i'm from the Netherlands working on a paper for my bachelor Biology on how cART represses HIV in the hostcell. Your contribution to Wikipedia helpt me out enourmous to understand a little more about HIV and it's genes. I'm not the best student cut out for this subject, so i'm very thankful that i found your explenation here on Wikipedia. It is truly a shame that students have to pay certain websites to read scientific papers. Thank God for people like you who make it a little more easer on us finding material to read for the understanding of a surtain subject before actualy paying to read more. :) Seriously, your article has been very helpful! I just had to thank you in this way. Yours truly, Maryam :) MaryamMayram (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

MaryamMayram I don't think I can take a lot of credit for the article that you found so useful, but I will see if I can convey your gratitude to other contributors.

I completely agree that students should not need to pay for access to publications; I imagine your institution might have subscriptions to many journals but many have recently found themselves reducing subscriptions because of the sheer cost.

Good luck with your studies! JFW | T@lk 19:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(I'm not coming back to Epilepsy, nor any medical article)

The comparison to blindness is still appropriate I feel. The actual loss of vision is a symptom in the same way as a seizure is a symptom. The degree and type of visual loss are aspects of those symptoms just as the type, severity and frequency of seizures are aspects of epilepsy's symptoms. Permanent blindness is a disability in the same way as epilepsy is a disability. If you think blindness is a symptom, then why does the article have a "signs and symptoms" section? It is a name for a group of conditions just as epilepsy is. There are a multitude of causes for blindness just as there are for epilpesy. There are diseases that only cause epilepsy (as far as we know -- your idiopathic examples) just as there are for blindness. There are also diseases that have epilepsy as a feature to greater and lesser degree, just as with blindness. I agree blindness can result from damage to more than one organ, but the brain is a rather complex organ I think you'll agree and there are a whole host of epilepsies that form in different parts of the brain or involve several parts of the brain malfunctioning together. As I said, cells do not get epilepsy or have seizures - brains do. This is important because the way a brain gets epilepsy is quite specific to the type of epilepsy - at both the macro structural level and micro cellular level. If all epilepsies had the same or similar mechanisms, we've have a drug that worked on them all.

The question (asked only by medical students) "what is the mechanism of epilepsy" is answered "epilepsy is not one disease, it has not one mechanism" - this is completely obvious for "blindness" as we all know that disease better. The general reader asks "what causes epilepsy" and would expect to be told any mechanisms as appropriate and to the level they understand and the level science understands. Nobody is suggesting we don't answer both questions [though it is highly significant that the question went unanwered in the article until we had this discussion]. But that talk page has now been taken over by medical students and doctors, who are trained to study the mechanism for all diseases and have in their minds considered "epilepsy" to be a disease, when it is not -- it is a group of diseases. You will note that many of our sources refer to "the epilepsies" yet our article frequently refers to it as though it was one disease.

There is more than one way to structure and article. Multiple ways may work well though some may be better than others. All the RFC did was polarise the discussion and hire a group of people who were minded to support James. The alternative was to support the newbie who was being reverted by the most active medical article in the project, and some angry person. Any intelligent person can argue for any position if they are inclined to do so. I'm sure if you chose to, you could persuade yourself and others to document the very brief things we can say about mechanism-in-general in another section. A top-level section needs a lot of content to justify its position, not just a mention in MEDMOS. Like a AfD where the inclusionists win but don't actually have to deal with the suboptimal article they voted to keep, it look like that committee has voted for a section they don't actually know how to write. Something will get written, and I hope it is better than what was written before, but it may not have been the best structure.

We had the chance, when that new editor came along, to take a different fresh approach that might have been a better one. We'll never know, because he got reverted, got edit-warred, and ultimately got outvoted by people inclined to support the incumbant. When I was active on Wikipedia, reverting good-faith edits, edit warring and voting were all considered bad things. If that's what is acceptable on Wikipedia now, I want no part of it. -- Colin°^Talk 08:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Good morning Colin I'm disappointed that you feel compelled to completely abandon the medical content. You have a strong legacy with the Project, and I don't think the discussion on Talk:Epilepsy should be reason to leave. James (and myself) are entitled to our view and while I support Jophiel and his work I feel that there is still space for compromise. At the same time, reverting is bad and I much prefer ongoing discussion.

I am not going to have a semantic discussion about blindness vs epilepsy on this talkpage. I pointed out the disparity because I don't believe that we can bypass the need for a "Mechanisms" section. "Causes" is for aetiology, "mechanism" is for the ways in which this leads to the clinical manifestations. To me this is as clear as day, and I don't see any grounds to deviate from WP:MEDMOS. Please let me know if I've missed something. JFW | T@lk 09:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree mechanism is a path. In the epilepsies the start of the paths and the ends of the paths are different. Different causes. Different seizures. Different parts of the brain. Different chemical and electrical changes. We don't disagree on what mechanism means, but on whether an encyclopeadia article for the general reader that covers a group of diseases needs such a top-level section. It is purely about article structure, whereas most of the arguments I've seen is along the lines of "of course there are mechanisms in epliepsy so therefore we need it". But if one can't discuss mechanism to any sensible degree without first picking one cause and one outcome, it becomes an awkward beast. There is a need to discuss "mechanisms". There is no core need, whatsoever, to have a top level mechanism section - that's purely an artefact of how we choose to write the subject. And such editorial decisions should be justified because they make a better article, not because the subject needs to be covered somehow. MEDMOS has no guidance on how to write an article on a group of diseases -- it has some suggestions on how to structure an article on one disease. So there is no "per MEDMOS" here.

My hope, in writing here rather than the polarised discusssion of that RFC, is you might at least acknowledge there are reasonable arguments for doing it another way. And my problem is that those reasonable arguments weren't allowed to develop to see if they are a practical improvement or if perhaps it was no improvement. A wiki should have allowed that and our editing policy encourages it. It's why I've always felt that whole debacle was a behavioural rather than content problem. We can resolve "article design" problems by experimentation on a wiki -- that's what's so wonderful about it. We don't design articles by citing WP:V. We don't design articles by committee. Well, we didn't.

I haven't written any medical content for years, so my loss won't be noticed. This is one page still in my watchlist and a certain user with "collaborative editing" issues knows his "per MEDMOS" edits are not welcome there. -- Colin°^Talk 09:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Colin; of course it is possible to generate a single section that contains both the causes and the mechanism by which each cause leads to seizures. I think the result of such a section will be a huge table with lots and lots of disjointed information.

To compare pneumothorax, all the causes lead to the accumulation of air in the chest for some reason or another. Despite this, the consequences are similar and are best brought together in a "Mechanism" section. My understanding of epilepsy might be deficient, but I think that the situation is analogous. JFW | T@lk 12:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: of course I could criticise James for not giving Jophiel the breathing space to try alternative ways of organising the information. But apart from slight trigger-happiness with regards to reverts (which is how he keeps 1000s of medical articles from becoming POV balls) I support the basic premise that underpins his actions. JFW | T@lk 13:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Pneumothorax is a poor choice for comparison, as you say all causes lead to the same accumulation of air in the chest. All epilepsies do not lead to the same seizures, frequencey of seizures, prognosis, etc. But I can well see how a non-specialist might think they do. In fact the Mechanism section in Pneumothorax could easily be combined with Causes. The introductory paragraph of Mechanism could do with being much earlier in the article, for it is the first time the body of the article actually explains what a pneumothorax actually is (it would be good if one is able to understand the article without the lead) - it doesn't belong in mechanism as it is really an explanation of what the topic is. The contents of the second paragraph are not clearly mechanism any more than they are cause. The Causes section is unsatisfactory and the Secondary Spontaneous section little more than a list with the reader left clueless. The separation of Mechanism from Causes leads to repetition and has meant the writers have left the mechanisms for many causes unexplained. The whole article keeps repeating the primary/secondary/traumatic grouping. The general reader does not look for "Mechanism" and I do wonder if truly the "mechanism" for many diseases is only really of primary top-level importance in a subset of cases. For example, in Tuberous sclerosis the cause is defects in one of two genes, but the mechanism is the path from that defect to the tumours and other organ changes.

On talking to a wikifriend last night, we considered another topic, which was in the news yesterday. Dementia. Again, a term for a group of diseases that have something in common but quite different causes, results, prognosis, etc. The article has no mechanism section but an extensive causes section.

The official guideline Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers does not contain an exclusion clause for James. Our editing policy "Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it)." does not say "Users who work hard to prevent mediocre articles becoming POV balls are permitted to demand talk-page consensus from other users prior to letting them make any edits". The basic premise that underpins his actions is ownership and I'm sorry to hear that 1000s of medical articles being owned by one editor is price worth paying -- for if Wikipedia relies on one editor ignoring policy and other editors turning a blind eye, then we are doomed.

I am pleased that our new editor seems to be solid enough to shrug off his unfriendly welcome and made an edit that has survived about 10 hours so far. The prose says something useful but could do with being more "general reader" friendly. Now, I wonder who on Wikipedia took an interest in working with experts to help them make articles understandable by all? -- Colin°^Talk 08:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Colin No analogy is perfect, not even mine; this is why I wanted to steer clear of semantics. I still do not see why epilepsy should be an exception to the general principle that we discuss causes and mechanism separately. While all causes of epilepsy lead to symptoms by different pathways, the unifying problem is that there is intermittent convulsive activity or an increased risk thereof. In my mind, a "mechanisms" section would address that unifying problem. I feel compelled to have a chat with a neurologist to see if this train of thought is correct, but my understanding is that generally speaking epilepsy can be characterised neurophysiologically.

I will keep an eye on recent edits; some of the recent changes have introduced rather technical language and this might also need addressing. With some luck we can eventually achieve a degree of consensus. JFW | T@lk 15:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, this isn't an "exception". There is no section in MEDMOS for "groups of diseases", as can be seen in blindness and dementia, only for single diseases. I remember that when we first wrote MEDMOS I did research into our best articles to see what common sections they had: there was really no best article structure to be found. I would be interested if you could find A or FA class articles on groups of diseases that have a mechanism section. Currently, I think epilepsy is unique rather following a "general principle". Do I need to find more? The common problem is recurrent seizures (not always, or indeed often, convulsive) but that is all. If you agree the pathways are different then surely that means the mechanisms are different? A "mechanism" isn't a long list of all the possible things that might go wrong and contribute to bad things happening. Remember this article is on epilepsy, not seizure. Ask your neurologist what the mechanism is for developing childhood absence epilepsy. Then ask her what the mechanism is for developing infantile spasms in tuberous sclerosis. And for developing a focal-seizure epilepsy due to a brain lesion. She might be able to say something about synchronous firing of neurons (which is merely the definition of a seizure) but I doubt they'd have much if anything to say that was common to these. Consider the drugs Ethosuximide, Vigabatrin and Lamotrigine for these three epilepsies and how differently their mechanisms of action are. We are looking at three diseases with three mechanisms. I'm not trying to win the RFC here, just to make you think and consider that there is more than one valid way of looking at a subject and then deciding how to write about it. -- Colin°^Talk 20:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The section (now titled "Pathophysiology") is being expanded and now contains information about what happens neurophysiologically in the brain of someone who has epilepsy. I am optimistic that we might be able to achieve something. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

May I remind you of your statement: "... perhaps you could make the changes that you believe are required. If you get reverted, you are entitled to an explanation on the talk page."

I did it, but all meaning was messed up right away, no explanation on the talk page, discussion about content refused beforehand anyway. An article cannot be created by a bunch of quotes. There needs to be discussion about the content. Jophiel 18:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel 123 If the meaning gets messed up, change it back and explain why in a clear edit summary. I have generally found that the additions are extremely technical and are in requirement of rephrasing. Perhaps some of the meaning gets lost in rephrasing. JFW | T@lk 19:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Jfdwolff I have explained my points of view so often (but with poor results), I am tired. If we really want to achieve something with the section we really need to take a step back first.

It is mandatory that before someone writes about a topic he gains knowledge on it. This means reading literature and understanding what it's all about (which does not necessarily mean understanding every detail). Once this is done, for instance, we could start talking about (by reasoning) what a section "pathopyhsiology" (and the respective section in the article on seizures) should contain, and which sources to use. In the end we can decide what language to use, general, technical, both, for whatever reasons.

Something has been grossly wrong here in the way of communication from the beginning. I don't see a culture of reasoning with arguments. I don't see willingness to gain in-depth knowledge and to talk about content (I offered to talk about content before my edit but it was refused). I don't see the full scientific approach (just a crippled version reduced to "verifiability"). I think this is what Colin is so upset about (and so am I). Jophiel 21:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel 123 Communicating online in a collaborative environment with people you haven't worked with previously is difficult. It is one of the troublesome bits about Wikipedia. I think everyone is here with the best of intentions and we probably agree on a lot more than you think. There are roughly two ways to communicate: either finding compromise and consensus (particularly with James), or through the dispute resolution process. I am pleased to see that you have tried to stick with the first option; many others would have spontaneously combusted at this stage.

With regards to the epilepsy article, you clearly have high standards (which is good) and you think the article as it stood wasn't very good (which is reasonable given your professional background). My opinion on the organisation of the article (especially what sections to include) is well known and I am in absolutely no mood to have another discussion about that. I am however very happy to take a more scientific approach and I will happily be led by you on the neurophysiological aspects of epilepsy, but you need to adapt to the reality that the article outline is not going to change and that we need to present information in a way that the average reader will understand. (Healthcare professionals can use other resources.) JFW | T@lk 22:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I had removed the RfC earlier already, so this conflict should have been settled (we keep a section mechanism or pathophysiology). Before we present anything we need to agree on what we present. This can only be achieved by talking about content (by reasoning). I proposed content before I made my recent edit but James did not want to talk about it. So, what's your suggestion? Jophiel 22:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel 123 Not participating in discussion of proposed content is tacit agreement until proven otherwise. It might be useful to spell this out. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I specifically asked for feedback [12]. It really makes no sense to talk about the final version of text (paraphrasing, sources) before you agree on the content. Jophiel 23:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify what I asked for was paraphrased content and and indication of which references support which parts.[13] I consider these important.

You appear to be disinclined to provide either on the talk page.[14] Additionally some of your paraphrasing is a little to much like the refs in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Jophiel 123 and Doc James Please continue the discussion now taking place on Talk:Epilepsy. I agree that verbatim quoting of text from sources should be avoided. JFW | T@lk 08:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you by any chance have access to this article? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23768246 Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be possible to email the authors. JFW | T@lk 08:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have access to the article, you should not have included it. WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT

Thanks, Doors22 (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Presumably that comment was aimed at Formerly 98 JFW | T@lk 21:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, apparently. I probably jumped the gun on this, but will have the article by Monday. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I started an Ebola translation task force (draft) to hopefully quickly get some Ebola related translations in local African languages. I'd love to see your input (and edits) Guaka (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome messages. I am just working on some general fixes and getting a better grasp on iron homeostasis to make the Hepcidin page more complete and then will move on to another article or clean up. I only have an undergraduate education in biology so sorting through reviews takes awhile... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmwallach (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Jmwallach Fabulous. Iron homeostasis is a pretty rapidly moving field, and hepcidin seems to be a key player. Let me know if you need a hand with anything. JFW | T@lk 08:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The BMJ paper says "In patients presenting with non-ST elevation ACS, pretreatment with thienopyridines is associated with no significant reduction of mortality but with a significant excess of major bleeding no matter the strategy adopted, invasive or not" [15] So appears this applies to both PCI and no PCI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Doc James The entire study focuses on pretreatment (see study and JJ Rade's commentary). Furthermore, the analysis looked only at clopidogrel and prasugrel and not the faster acting new agents (cangrelor/ticagrelor). The authors allude to the possibility that in the times of the CURE trial, when routine early coronary angiography might have been used less, a more definite benefit existed.

I think we run the risk of being very nihilistic. The section on NSTEMI currently does not cover existing international guidelines but state that heparins and TPs do not reduce death. The reader is left with the impression that these treatments should therefore be omitted. You will know from clinical practice that this is not currently the case.

I too worry about harms of "full ACS protocol" in people presenting with a rather soft history and a blameless ECG. In that sense, improved early diagnostics will hopefully reduce exposure to these agents. JFW | T@lk 07:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude! This is a very interesting meta-analysis, which I wouldn't have come across if it weren't for you.

Just reminding you that there's a lot of work going on in Management of acute coronary syndrome, if in a bit slow pace. You're more than welcome to participate. (A particular worry I might need help with is that I'm being too technical). My sandbox has more stuff for the article that I've written but haven't made final yet.

And coming back to the above findings, I wonder how one can include them in the article next to the clear indication that American and European guidelines give to double antiplatelet therapy, and without being too technical again. NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello NikosGouliaros (and ping Doc James). I would be grateful if you could keep an eye on the "main" MI article. For reasons of space we cannot discuss the finer details of management, but before today the NSTEMI section was really bare and did not discuss the guideline-driven initial management of NSTEACS. It even gave the unwarranted impression that nothing worked. I have now added some bumph about the NICE and AHA 2014 guidelines for NSTEACS, and I need to see if the ESC guidelines differ substantially. JFW | T@lk 08:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I do keep an eye on MI. It was the hideous section of management that prompted me to start working on the subject, and I thought that it would be better to first rewrite the article on Management of ACS and then incorporate its basic elements into the main article; that's why I haven't been working on the main article at all yet. (I'm a bit of a perfectionist). Your recent contributions couldn't have been more called for and accurate though! NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NikosGouliaros. Let me know if there's anything I've left out. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes the treatment of STEMI needs to be expanded upon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi JFD, I put a proposal up on the MEDRS talk page and would appreciate your input. thanks, Formerly 98 (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98 Will do. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 16:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion @ Talk:Subarachnoid hemorrhage#Phillip Hughes death about whether the recent death of cricketer Phillip Hughes from " ... vertebral artery dissection leading to subarachnoid haemorrhage." [16] should be included on the subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) page. I removed an unsourced mention of it from the pages lead section. You have the highest edit count at SAH, so I thought you might be interested. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 04:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 220 of Borg, I will contribute to the discussion. JFW | T@lk 11:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jacob, good to meet you on Wednesday before your talk at the Science Museum. Hope it went well - do you know if it was recorded at all? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your feedback. Was the problem in my LQTS article edit related to the source or the depth of information or both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhadlaq (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alhadlaq, thanks for getting in touch. The main issue is with the source. We avoid primary sources as the conclusions are too dependent on methodology and reproducibility. If a source is very good (e.g. a Lancet seminar) it is generally acceptable to cite it heavily (as long as it's paraphrased rather than quoted verbatim). JFW | T@lk 21:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Guillain–Barré syndrome page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for shilling for the pharmaceutical industry. Together with user Formerly 98 you seem to be engaged in actively shilling in this manner. Your actions are noted and you can be blocked for changing content to suit your bias. Wikipedia must be an independent source of information. Please respect the guidelines. Inappropriately removing content is not tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpuskrusty (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Corpuskrusty has been indefinitely blocked for edit-warring, harassment, and other disruption. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur goes shopping. Saves me the time of writing an elaborate and well-meaning but fundamentally sarcastic reply. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Guillain–Barré syndrome page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi JFW, I'm not sure I understand why you reverted the change in the epidemiology section that I made. In this diff here [17], there was no reference clearly attached to the first sentence (if it's Sejvar that's okay, but that wasn't clear to me), but I also changed what was originally written there from "In Western countries," to say "globally". Does the 2011 paper by Sejvar have this specific global incidence statistic? Since it's free access I took a look and didn't see anything that looked like a global incidence estimate, only more regional estimates. I still think it's important to have the global statistic there and that comes from the Dimachkie paper. If you can find a stronger source than that with the same statistic though, then that's fine too. I'm not disagreeing that Sejvar is a strong source with its calculations, but I do not think it verifies the specific claim now made about global incidence whereas the Neurologic Clinics paper did (and was free access). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 Sejvar is quoted in almost every single review since 2011 (including NEJM2012 and NatRevNeurol2014). Unfortunately I cannot access the Neurology Clinics paper but I am fairly certain that they too rely on Sejvar et al's estimations. I don't think anyone can say anything reliable about global GBS incidence because epidemiology data outside Western countries is very poorly collected and distributed. I recall facing a similar dilemma on hypothyroidism, where it was obvious that all stats were being generated in iodine-replete countries. JFW | T@lk 14:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's full access here, but I see upon rereading it that to be more accurate it says the incidence of GBS varies worldwide between 0.6-4.0 cases/100,000 people. It's two paragraphs in after the abstract here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3939842/ Again, I'm not disputing the Sejvar's paper, but stating that it does not specify the 0.6-4.0 estimate from this newer paper from Neurologic clinics. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 Ah, I hadn't noticed that the "Author Manuscript" was free on PMC. The 0.6-4.0/100,000 estimate is cobbled together from a number of sources that predates Sejvar's more robust analysis. As such, I much prefer to use Sejvar as a more definitive source, unless you have any objections. JFW | T@lk 15:12, 7 Decembe 2014 (UTC)

No objection, we just need to change the 0.6-4.0 stat I put in since the Sevjar paper does not use that specific statistic. I'll see if I come across any other newer reviews that discuss global incidence. If not, perhaps it will emerge in the literature some time in the future. Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page and I think we are. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 Thanks. Fixed. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, not sure if you're experiencing this problem as well, but the picture you added in the beginning of the article does not appear despite multiple refreshes of the page. I see it says something like spirodoc.jpg or something to that effect. Might be worth looking into. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guillain–Barré syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complement. 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) 09:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hiya Jfdwolff, When I saw your comment, I really really hoped that you would not be a medical professional- I suspect you are; but at least not in my country. Yeah, 40 years ago some one with Myasthenia was misdiagnosed with polymyositis (or vice versa) - in the particular referenced case the mistreatment lasted nine years. Its not clear to me why such a misdiagnosis would not happen again- other than the fact that such a possibility was mentioned in Wikipedia. Stacie Croquet (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

So, while living "outside the box" -say in Cuba, Senegal or Canada, if I experience polymyositis symptoms, I can take comfort that I will not be misdiagnosed as I will receive a battery of immunological tests and electrophysiological tests for myasthenia. Will WT:MED be any less self-indulgent?...why not WP:RS? Anyways I have learnt all I need from that 40 year old article...on to the next subject. Stacie Croquet (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hiya Jfdwolff, considering you had the courtesy of giving me your time to discuss your reverts I had considered adding an apology...it can be difficult to articulate valid points without sounding terse. But I do consider the Myasthenia gravis article, in particular, to be self-indulgent and suspect the class of editors at WT:MED to be similarly afflicted - the criticism is derived from the content and is generalized. The red links are to illustrate your explanation is not as clear as you may think. The MG article assumes a perfect little world absent of real world limitations, - structural; financial; or competence related (say in the case of Canada) - which unfortunately remain equally relevant today. If misdiagnosis had been consigned to the dustbin of history then it should be included a history section in the article. This is an encyclopedia not an undergraduate textbook. Stacie Croquet (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Guillain–Barré syndrome page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

was the header on med talk also, Wiki CRUK John (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki CRUK John LOL. Forgot my Weetabix. JFW | T@lk 07:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jfd, I hit a paywall with this, but perhaps you have access. I think it'll help us address the citation needed template about the chronic inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy bit. It comes from the same Nature Review issue as the other paper used in the GBS article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24980070 Happy holidays my friend! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 Thanks. That paper seems mostly about CIPD and related forms. Might be relevant if we decide to discuss the distinction & how some GBS starts behaving like CIPD. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's what I said, right? I was saying this may be useful to address one of the few remaining citation needed statements (this one: "About 5–10% of patients have one or more late relapses, in which case they are then classified as having chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.[citation needed]"). This statement sounds like a review article on CIDP could serve as verification, right? As I mention earlier, I don't have access, but if you do and send me a copy, I can see if it verifies the statement of interest and cite it appropriately if it does. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 The subject is also covered in some of the recent GBS reviews (NatRevNeurol2014 in particular has a table comparing the different scenarios), so we might not need to use it. JFW | T@lk 14:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That's okay too (no access on my end though but if you want to tend to that that's cool). Either way is fine really. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Domperidone.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added those details you requested to the citations. Please note that the PMIDs that were included allow a direct link to the articles by the PubMed database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetraveler3.14 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Timetraveler3.14. Yes, we could obtain citation info from the Pubmed citation, but it is preferable to provide the full citation straight away. Thanks for sorting this out. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James Thanks James. Hopefully some more editing time and more Wikiproject Med Foundation activities! JFW | T@lk 07:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff, would you be interested in having a look at the article on Gluten sensitivity? I have made an attempt at improving the article recently (including creating the new article on "Gluten challenge test" and removing a poorly-sourced section on this in the Gluten sensitivity article). But some parts of the article are still rather messy. In the end, I have marked the most evident problems which I could not imediately solve with "clarify" templates etc. - For example, the article speaks of "idiopathic gluten sensitivity" which is not, as far as I can see, usual terminology for any gluten sensitivity variant in mainstream medicine. As further example, the term "gluten-sensitive enteropathy" seems to be intended to be distinguished from celiac disease in an undefined way. (As a more general matter, there does not seem to be clarity so far as to whether the article should deal with gluten-related disorders in general or should focus on non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) in particular - but this may be natural given that research on NCGS is rapidly changing in the last 3 years.) In brief, if you would like to check it out, I would be pleased. --Chris Howard (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris Howard Thanks for your message. I can have a look but I am not sure if I will be able to sort this properly. GSE is classically a synonym for coeliac disease, but there is a whole territory of gluten-related pathologies that enjoy much less acceptance within the medical science community. doi:10.1136/bmj.e7982 stirred up a lot of discussion.

I would personally struggle to make a diagnosis based on challenge and rechallenge, because most products containing gluten also contain lots of other substances that might be allergenic or immunogenic in some form or another. JFW | T@lk 23:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Right. Hard to sort it out entirely properly at this point. If you could for example address the GSE wordings (clarifying the statements, if you can), substituting the expression coeliac disease wherever applicable (and deleting any statement that might seem to be nonsense), that would already be quite an improvement... --Chris Howard (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have proposed here to move the NCGS part to a new article (building on a suggestion of someone else earlier). If you have an opinion about that, you may want to join in. This is just to keep you posted. --Chris Howard (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I wish you a Happy New Year!

I have now expanded non-celiac gluten sensitivity from a redirect to an article, and have moved "gluten sensitivity", after restructuring it, to the umbrella term gluten-related disorders. Greetings --Chris Howard (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Troutman (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Harrias ^talk 12:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you have commented at this. I think as of now all the points on all the reviews are responded to, and either settled or awaiting a response from the reviewer (mostly the former), so you may want to revisit it. I'm sorry some of you have had to wait a while for this. There has been a lot of activity, both on this page and on the article itself, as well as the holidays. It's been great to see so many people getting involved in this. Many thanks to you and all reviewers and editors! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Jfdwolff, there is currently a debate between me and another editor on the WP article Bayt Nattif's Talk-Page (last section), concerning an entry there which I found inappropriate and relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Looking for your candid advice.Davidbena (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue has since been resolved. Davidbena (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff - Since you've looked at some of my edits, I wonder if you'd consider granting me rollback privileges. Thanks! BakerStMD T|C 22:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! BakerStMD T|C 23:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing you accidentally granted the template editor right? — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal Sorry, did I break something? JFW | T@lk 21:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, but it looks like you inadvertantly granted the template editor right along with rollback. I couldn't find where this was requested, and given the user has little contributions to the template space (or those requiring an understanding of parser functions), this lead me to believe it was a mistake, so I have removed it. I was correct in doing this, I hope? :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal Certainly wasn't intentional. Thanks for fixing it! JFW | T@lk 22:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Wolff. Could you please take a look at User talk:IZAK#History of Organized Jewish Wikipedians. What do you make of it? Thanks. IZAK (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to update you on the status of your Elsevier account. I sent the first list to Elsevier on 12 January. Elsevier reports that they will be e-mailing applicants next week with an access code, which will start your use of the resource. I appreciate your patience with this process. Feel free to contact me with any feedback or questions you have about Elsevier access. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris troutman Thanks for the update! JFW | T@lk 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi - you asked about the overlap with clinical neurophysiology - I addressed this in the section titled Relationship to Clinical Neurophysiology - they are not the same. I thought I made it clear but maybe I need to add more. Let me know. Sadkins1953 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sadkins1953 I meant that it should be covered on clinical neurophysiology as well. I'm not sure whether clinical articles should include links to EDM and/or CNP. JFW | T@lk 21:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I added a section to the clinical neurophysiology that explains the overlap on that page as well and added some links back. Hope that addresses your concerns. Sadkins1953 (talk)

Apparently I wrote Wikipedia:Biomedical information about six weeks ago. I would like it to be expanded with examples or "case studies" to give people the flavor of what MEDRS applies to. I would be grateful for your improvements, as well as the help of any of your usual talk-page stalkers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

In my sandbox you can see what I have accomplished so far (I am "done" through Skin diseases).

I have added the key in a table at the top. I have 5 categories (now including Comorbidities) and a number of qualifiers specifically designed to help people understand how things have changed from the current version.

Note that some of the work "done" is already in need of some editing.

I am not sure if we want a separate category for "not-autoimmune" or to include them in the categories - thoughts?

Before I publish I am going to ensure that every disease listed has a disease-specific page with whatever sources are available to substantiate it as an autoimmune disease. Aaron Abend (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaronabend Thanks for getting in touch. I agree with the general outline of the table, but I fear it won't be ready for "prime time" until the referencing is more robust. It might be possible to move parts of the table to the autoimmune disease page whenever the referencing is okay.

As with regards "not autoimmune", I think this should be a separate table (as some columns are not relevant) with clear references that support the claim that the condition does not meet the criteria for autoimmunity. JFW | T@lk 16:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note - I plan to include a reference for a disease being classified Not Autoimmune only if there is historical evidence that the disease was considered autoimmune in the past. In these cases (e.g., Narcolepsy), I can make reference to the paper that "proved" autoimmunity, but are resources indicating that the paper was withdrawn (http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/30/narcolepsy-paper-retracted/) acceptable forms of evidence? As for diseases without historical evidence, I am not sure what to do. For example, I cannot find evidence to support that Cancer itself is autoimmune, nor can I find any that it is not autoimmune. When there is no evidence on either side, I believe it is appropriate to assume the negative. Aaron Abend (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I think a separate table for not-autoimmune will be better too. However, to clarify the distinction between "not autoimmune" and Limited, I propose that "not autoimmune" include a clear reference (could be primary or secondary) that supports NOT meeting the criteria (assuming it had been thought autoimmune at some earlier point). Otherwise, I will qualify as Limited acceptance. Narcolepsy is an example. I will classify it as "not autoimmune" based on the retraction of the 2013 paper.Aaron Abend (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Update I have posted the latest draft of the table on my sandbox. Remaining tasks: 1) ensure all references from the original table are intact, 2) ensure that all diseases in the current table are represented properly in the new table, with an explanation of any reclassification (e.g., Narcolepsy); 3) ensure every disease listed has its own page in Wikipedia. Any pages I add to ensure completeness will conform to Wikipedia medical entry standards, and will include appropriate references to support evidence of autoimmunity.

Note that I am not necessarily going to add references for a disease that is currently included in the list but is not properly referenced, though some of these diseases have been put into the Not Autoimmune list. Aaron Abend (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In my sandbox I have posted a close-to-final version of the Autoimmune Disease table. All references from original are intact and I have added a few new ones; Almost every disease has a valid link in Wikipedia - APS-3 is the only one left except for some non-autoimmune diseases. I might not create links for diseases that are "Not Autoimmune". Aaron Abend (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Update - Ready to publish? I have copied the entire Autoimmune Diseases page to my sandbox to make sure the new table works as expected with the existing content. I have added new references for some diseases (especially those new to the table) and ensured that links to all diseases within Wikipedia are working for all diseases except those listed in the "Not autoimmune" section. I have tried to ensure that all links to diseases within Wikipedia indicate that the disease is autoimmune, that it is spelled without a hyphen, and that there is a solid reference for autoimmune etiology there. In those cases, I have not moved the supporting reference to the Autoimmune Diseases list, but I have not removed any references that are already in the table.

I have indicated whether a disease was Accepted, Suspected, or just "included" (Y or N) in the original list.

I have specified the "Level of Evidence" as best as I could. In many of the original listings, nothing was provided at all. This new list might not be as well referenced as it could be, but I believe it is better than what is there today. I have made every attempt to ensure nothing was left out, and ensured that anything added has acceptable evidence.

I have enlisted support from 2 volunteers to chase down comments I expect to receive once I post it. I plan to post tonight unless you have objections. Aaron Abend (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

.

2.146.232.232 (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) @ 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 I have had only marginal involvement with the project for some time now, so I am not sure if I am the best person to ask! JFW | T@lk 09:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

hi, I noticed you gave opinions at this article, and therefore I would be interested in your opinion on the talk page under treatment table.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. JFW | T@lk 14:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

After more than a decade and dealing with MS I know what this disease is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.146.232.232 (talk • contribs)

I presume you are Mjesfahani editing without logging in, and that you are responding to my respone (link) on Talk:Multiple sclerosis.

I would suggest that you post on that talk page if you believe that I misunderstood your post. JFW | T@lk 09:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello I'm Mansour Jourabchian Esfahasni. The doctor told my MS and recognized my secondary progressive MS was Mohammad Ali Sahraian and he is a valid doctor. Any more question please contact me. Sorry, these days I do not use my notebook a lot.

Mansour Jourabchian MansourJE (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not disputing your doctor's credentials. If you wish to discuss the content of the article multiple sclerosis then please do so on Talk:Multiple sclerosis.

Apologies for moving your post here, but it seems you are responding to my message above from 8 May. JFW | T@lk 14:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Jfdwolff, I'm in need of your assistance. Hopefully, you can be impartial and see through all that has been happening here. There is a WP article entitled Az-Zakariyya that I tried to make revisions to, by adding the current Israeli data about the village (now a Jewish Moshav, but formerly an Arab village). The author of that article (an Arab) disagreed that I add any current status about the village (such as current population stats, photographs, etc.) and so I desisted from doing so. See history of page. Since there was a second article written about the same Moshav (namely, Zekharia, this time written by a Jew but much shorter in scope), I decided to work on his article and to bring it up to par by enhancing it and carrying over some of the information found in the other article, but improving it and deleting derogatory statements about Israel. Now, the same (Arab) editor is deleting my edits on Zekharia. I have brought this matter to your attention since you are an administrator. If you wish to know the complete matter and what has so far transpired between me and the other editor, you may wish to see the Talk page on Az-Zakariyya, under the section: "Merge." I would hope that you can help solve our dispute, but more importantly, that the editor in question does not continue to disrupt by vandalism my editing, just as I would not disrupt another person's editing.Davidbena (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Vomiting page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)