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

We're a group of editors who want to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. I noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles, such as your edits to the article Zefr; it's great to have a new editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

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

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions. I wish you all the best, and thank you for your help! Zefr ( talk) 15:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello! I'm Zefr. Your recent edit(s) to the page Anticoagulant appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. There is no problem with calling anticoagulants "blood thinners". Physicians and the lay public use this term. See WP:MEDMOS - writing for the wrong audience. Lay terms are good when used commonly in clinics. Respond here on your talk page if you wish to dispute. Zefr ( talk) 15:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello Zefr

I appreciate the more considerate tone in your paragraph above, but you still seem to be very dogmatic in your approach to the editing of Wikipedia that is supposedly open to all. You must have read my previous comments, but have failed to address any of them.

Please tell me what incorrect information that I have add?

Firstly, though, please apologise for trying to invoke the 'vandalism' card on my emendments to the anti-coagulant page.

I would refer you to Wikipedia's own page for the issue of 'vandalism' - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Vandalism - and my emendments certain do not come anywhere near this remit. You acted in breach of the guidance to administrators as the issue of editing. You should not revert an article back without taking into account what has been appended to an article. Nor should you threaten a block when it is obvious that my emendments do not in any way what-so-ever make the article unusable as a resource.

I believe we have a difference of understanding / opinion on the web-page.

My main change that you appear fixated on retaining in its current form is the term of 'blood thinner'. It is an appalling over-simplification that in fact means nothing and is wholly incorrect.

I suggest you look up the term 'thinner'. Check a good dictionary or even Wikipedia's own entry. A thinner is a diluent - a solvent that increases the level of dilution of a colloid or solid suspension in a liquid.

Please tell me how any anti-coagulant you can name that radically alters the 'dilution' of the blood - lets say in actively decreasing the haematocrit to a significant degree. There are none. Blood plasma volume is not altered by them.

In normal blood, the addition of anti-coagulants in no way makes the blood more liquid. Anti-coagulants are not nor can in any way be drawn as a parallel to being a diluent or solvent. They are bio-chemical drugs (e.g. heparin) or organic chemicals (salts like citrate, EDTA, etc.).

So we can determine that the term 'thinner' is completely inappropriate. Thus, it remains baffling why it is still used.

Unfortunately, the term is bandied around loosely without any real thought, often by GPs, some of who get peculiar ideas at much or how little people understand. It is completely misleading. Simply put: anti-coagulants stop or reduce the blood clotting. This brief sentence gives no difficulty for the vast majority in understanding what they do as there is not any technical term being used in the definition.

Introducing the concept of 'thinning the blood', is not only misleading it makes the comprehension of there action more complicated than needed.

So, how do you want to address this issue now on the article's web-page?

Apart form the issue of term 'thinner', my emendments are relatively gentle and uncontroversial. The tweaks improve either the explanation, or correct grammar & punctuation to lessen the jargon-heavy entry in its current form.

Please explain as to why you seem to think that not applying the correct spacing & punctuation in spelling out the acronym EDTA in some way makes it more comprehensible by a layperson? An umpteen-letter word as you present it is jargon, whereas by apply the correct spacing & punctuation enables anyone unfamiliar with it a better inkling of what EDTA actually is.

Please explain fully how your position is only correct interpretation and thus wholly negates my input?

Yours

ASC Camsteerie ( talk) 17:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

As a new editor on Wikipedia, you may not know common policies and practices. For example, common names are used in countless articles, such as pain killer, aspirin (rather than acetylsalicylic acid), polio (not poliomyletis), and many others. "Blood thinner" is regarded as a natural-language word - see WP:UCRN as the relevant policy.

See this UK national health service discussion, this US national library article, and this well-regarded hospital as examples of explaining "blood thinners".

Also, it is editorial courtesy and normal practice to wait for a reasonable time for editors to discuss issues on talk pages, and to allow discussion to iron out differences without warring for your opinion. Now that you have been warned here, you can proceed more cautiously. Zefr ( talk) 21:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie ( talk) 21:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Zefr

I am not in an edit war - as I stated in my last deletion of the term 'thinner', if you had read the message I had sent along with it, it was asking you to reply to my well-reasoned arguments, which you have still failed to do, and to leave the term off until we could come up with a clearer commonly agreeable way of presenting this information together.

I am trying to work a mutually agreeable approach here, but your approach and lack of response to the case I have laid out gives the distinct impression that you are being dogmatic and seeking an edit battle.

You have still not put a reasoned argument to retain it. Simply saying it is in common usage does not validate the use. With Wikipedia, we are trying to present accurate up-to-date information, not inaccurate historically used information simply because it is widespread. Wikipedia is a place hopefully to crush old mistaken myths & out-dated terms. We use SI units instead of Imperial as this is a better, more straight-forward system that has greater clarity is universally understood & agreed. This is why the article is 'Anti-coagulant', not 'Blood Thinner' in the first place. The latter term fails on universal clarity, comprehension & agreement.

Your first cited reference from the N.H.S. in the U.K. web-page on anti-coagulants verifies my point precisely:

Anticoagulants work by interrupting the process involved in the formation of blood clots. They're sometimes called "blood-thinning" medicines, although they don't actually make the blood thinner.

You will also note the term is 'sometimes called', not 'always', or 'frequently', 'often', but 'sometimes'. The tenor of this article clearly is to inform here that the term has been used, but not to encourage its further dissemination due to it being unhelpful & inaccurate.

Could it be that in the US, the term 'blood thinner' is used as a default, before then going on to mention the concepts of clotting & coagulation and its prevention much later, whereas in Europe, the use of anti-coagulant is used first & foremost, only only then if there appears to be a blankness or lack of understanding, to try other terms including 'blood thinner' to see if comprehension dawns?

This would explain why your 2nd & 3rd citations from US websites uses the erroneous term in preference the scientifically factually accurate one.

What the issue could be here is that we two peoples divided by a common language?

Just because Wikipedia was set up in the US in the first instance, its intention with being compiled in as full as spectrum of languages as is reasonably possible, along with the founding principles of drawing on knowledge from around the globe just as in the scientific community. This means that the US editors & administrators cannot dictate to conform to the view from the US alone. It is a wide world, with views & approaches that do differ from that of the US and so Wikipedia must respond to this to remain a global resource.

Simply put, in the US, thing may be seen & interpreted one way that runs counter to as it would be seen & interpreted in Europe, Africa, or Asia.

So, pull you finger out and line up a better argument than you are currently pursuing.

If we cannot come to an equitable solution to our current impasse, may it be necessary for there to be a US version of the article against one for the Europe, though I have to say that that is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia.

By-the-way, I am not a new editor on Wikipedia. I have consulted, updated, and created new articles for some 20→25 years, it is so long ago, that I cannot recall when first came across Wikipedia, but I remember setting up my first new article with several paragraphs on SUDS, sustainable urban drainage systems, that I had been investigating for my local authority in my spare time, which has been greatly expanded upon as it has become more prevalent, I am pleased to see. I possibly registered as an editor soon after my first few browsings, but due to my time constraints and very ad hoc interventions - that is only correcting or adding emendments & updates if I came across noticeable gaffes, omissions, or poorly expressed articles - but if so, then I never maintained account allowing it to fall into abeyance.

Also, I was undertaking medical research before the World-Wide Web was even launched and we were using Janet instead to disseminate our work.

ASC Camsteerie ( talk) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Zefr did not issue the edit warring warning above, I did. And you are definitely edit warring, especially when one takes into account the edits you have made without an account. You must stop edit warring and wait for agreement from other editors - either on the article's associated talk page or via dispute resolution. If you continue as you have been, it is very likely that your account will be blocked - that is not a threat, I will not block your account personally. But someone else will if you continue to ignore Wikipedia's policies in this matter. MrOllie ( talk) 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

MrOllie

My reply above was to Zefr's last posting. This can be seen as I was refuting her argument via the references that were supplied.

I had not seen your post. Are you an independent arbiter who has been called in on this matter?

I would state that Zefr reverted back my edits without any consideration as to its input - whole-scale deletion - without explanation.

In my 2nd paragraph I state quite clearly that I am looking to a mutual way forward in creating a better article.

Wikipedia is about embracing multiple viewpoints not adhering to a party line or single dogma.

So, if there is an anticoagulant discussion page then please supply a link to it?

ASC Camsteerie ( talk) 18:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You were clearly responding to my warning - Zefr has not used the words 'edit war' on this page. Remember to check the signature on postings to talk pages, you will very often be corresponding with multiple other people.

I'm not concerned about Zefr's behaviour. They are a long term editor of Wikipedia and do not require a warning about this.

Please check the links embedded in the above message, answers to your questions may be found therein. MrOllie ( talk) 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Mr Ollie

My apologies - it appears that I must have missed your signature. It helps if you introduce yourself or at least indicate clearly that you are new to this and to sign off more clearly too - i.e. use a separate paragraph.

Regardless, in that reply I was clearly addressing Zefr.

Are you or are you not an independent arbiter in this disagreement?

As I could not see - though I checked a number - I could not find a link to a discussion page on this article.

Why not provide a link now so that I can discuss this matter with the other editors?

ASC Camsteerie ( talk) 22:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

All articles have discussion pages. See Talk:Anticoagulant. AntiDionysius ( talk) 22:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

AntiDionysius

Thank you for this link.

ASC Camsteerie ( talk) 00:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply