Hi Wiki CRUK John! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hi Wiki CRUK John, per our discussion at Anatomical terms of location I'd like to present an easy and accessible training option for trainees. The guidelines for anatomy articles have recently been changed (see WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy), and we are trying to include a "Clinical significance" heading in all anatomy articles. Under this heading subheadings may include imaging, and the names of prominent diseases. An example may be found at Esophagus#Clinical significance or Pudendal nerve#Clinical significance. Diseases are:
I think getting trainees to write these summaries is an excellent training opportunity because:
I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Kind regards, -- LT910001 ( talk) 10:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey John,
I've cleaned up the transitions and sound on the new medical editor video. I'm still new to video editing but this is as good as it's going to get for a little bit. I saw that you wanted to know when a new version was up, so here you go. Hope it works. Ian Furst ( talk) 11:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
"National Institute for Health and Care Excellence" - should be said this is for the UK, or more accurately England and Wales" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Wondering on your feedback on the lead. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Brain tumor is also ready for you to look over it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreatic cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faces ( 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) 08:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Have worked on this one. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello John :) I think you already realise some of the very real practical obstacles in eliciting expert involvement. But if you were able to devise with CRUK a workable way of stimulating some sort of real, constructive participation, I think that could represent a great human resource. Individuals from teams working on a particular topic will be on familiar first-name terms with an entire corpus of relevant primary and secondary sources; this is especially true if they've been involved in writing a review on the subject. Of course, all humans have POVs, and scientists are no exception. Having a basic understanding of how selection of secondary sources that satisfy MEDRS is used by us as a tool for composition of reliable NPOV content would obviously be essential. As would simplicity of interaction, imo. I feel a start could be finding some simple ways of flagging a) outright blunders; b) areas that need more subtle work, in terms of coverage/completeness, updating, correction, nuance, etc. One thing these guys could probably do rather easily is point to specific MEDRS (eg via the PMID, or by citing Author, Journal, year) that could be consulted for improvements. But doubtless you'll have thought all this through for yourself. In which case, my apologies, 86.128.169.211 ( talk) 13:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Supports "it is second to breast cancer among female-only cancers"? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi John. How's the upgrading going? Can you point me to a list of the first-reviewed articles, please? If any are being neglected, point me to them and I'll be happy to have a go at one. - Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm reading up on esophageal cancer, but it'll be another week or two before you see much action on the article. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
John, great interaction with you at Pancreatic cancer. I am a curmudgeon, and anyone who gets along with me off the bat is a Wikipedia gem. I'd like to suggest that you have a look at the "Jack Andraka" article, later in the day or tomorrow. (Give me at least a couple of hours from this timestamp, to see the Talk section I add, as a prelude to major editing.) After reading the article, have a look at this source, for balance in scientific perspective: [2]. There are a variety of issues with the article, as my Talk entry (and forthcoming edits) will make clear, but I would appreciate your eventual perspective/edits regarding the fundamental matter of the chosen biomarker, after you see my flurry of major edits appear this week. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 15:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce
This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.
note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you * sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject MedicineSpotlight - Simplified article translation
Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.
Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.
What's happening?
I've ( CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as
Dutch,
Polish, and
Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not
MEDRS (
Polish,
German,
Romanian,
Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [5]
News in short
Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF ( talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF ( talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreatic cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMI. 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) 09:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi John! I know I said on Doc James' page that I would need a couple weeks to finish up but I've just gone through my last major source for endometrial cancer and am sort of at a loss for where to go from here. Would you or another CRUK person be willing to provide a sort of mid-development review? Thank you so much - and I do understand if you're not available. Best, Keilana| Parlez ici 18:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Wiki CRUK John!
Thank you for your contributions to WP.
Just thought I'd drop a note Re: our discussion on Cancer screening. I couldn't agree more that there are too few content-adders (sounds like a dangerous snake, I prefer "prose writers"). I do aspire to improving my writing skills and finding the time and drive to add more in content to articles. Despite the fact I am a Registered Nurse in Intensive Care who avidly studies evidence based medicine and critical care medicine in general, I find writing on medical topics challenging (Bios seem much easier to me).
What I do a lot of on WP is verification. I find the sources cited, format them "properly" (IMO with a modicum of respect for CITEVAR) and do my best to provide links that give free access or point users in the best direction for them to find their access options. I also frequently actually read the sources (I have a variety of means of access). It is truly shocking to me how frequently I find sources misrepresented or plainly used to support facts they don't contain. With an interest in both medicine and fringe topics I find myself working on articles that are heavily discussed on talk pages require close attention to MEDRS, or have a single primary editor. To comply with policy (and foster consensus) I frequently post suggestions to talk pages rather than editing boldly.
I also consider myself a fairly competent researcher but don't always have the time or motivation to edit and write prose so I often add references I have found a "Further reading" section (new or existing). I appreciate greatly the work of prose writers and post articles I think are important or in need of revision to Project Medicine Talk or the Fringe Theories NB. I hope my work on sources is of help to those who would do the writing and perhaps over time some editors will find that when I post an article I have facilitated editing by improving sources.
Thanks for pointing to US centrism, I will keep it in mind when researching (I'm thinking WHO, NHS and EU) and editing.
Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 19:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreatic cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon. 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) 08:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. We'll probably see each other around anyway, but can I have a brief word before 11:00 am? I'll be in Costa's coffee shop from 10:00, or can track you down if you tell me where you'll be. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Diagram showing where the lymph nodes are in the neck CRUK 384.svg note to self Johnbod ( talk) 17:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Medcan Clinic#Notability. Cheers!
P.S. I thank you for the input you have provided at Talk:Medcan Clinic already. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 09:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi John! I just wanted to let you know that I've put about 3/4 of the images -all of the obvious ones - uploaded by CRUK into the appropriate articles. Do you know if any more images will be uploaded in the future, or is this it? Thanks so much, Keilana| Parlez ici 04:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Esophageal cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon. 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) 09:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I happened upon your edit for article "Precancerous condition" and noted that you had added the statement "After 2005 both the terms [precancer and carcinoma in situ, presumably] have been clubbed together and is now known as potentially malignant lesions." I could not find evidence to support this statement, and was wondering if you could clarify or provide a reference. I have removed the statement in the meanwhile. Thanks! Dr G ( talk) 20:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for thinking so carefully about the way to portray the prognosis in diseases with poor survival rates. Considering the patient and their family as an audience is really important in these situations. I'm glad that you are around helping write medical articles. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 04:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
Hi CRUK John, I know you have previously mentioned some reviews of medical articles by subject experts. Are those reviews difficult to arrange? I was wondering if, over the course of the next year or so, Cancer Research UK would be able to arrange for several reviews of anatomical articles. Anatomical literacy is an important component in how people understand cancer care and the materials delivered to them. Reviews could be of some of our most popular articles ( WP:ANAT500), which receive in aggregate now about 27 million views / month. What do you think about this suggestion? I would love to hear from non-Wiki users about some of our articles. Unlike Medicine, which may in fact have fairly well fleshed-out articles, these reviews would also be able to offer some key points about how articles could develop. Looking at sympathetic nervous system made me come here, as I could not help thinking what a subject expert would have to say about this. What are your thoughts about this? Kindly, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 03:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Incidence. 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) 10:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure why you are removing these? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You are referring to these edits [7]. You will note:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Page is looking good.
Complimenti!
109.157.83.50 (
talk) 13:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm done making edits for now by the way, so enjoy not getting edit conflicts, if I happened to trigger any for you. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that revert John, never nice I know. Despite being tight on time I did at least engage on the PR page, and the issue is a real one. See, for example, this - the cartoon is a classic among epidemiologists. I think we really do need to be cautious in our claims and wording (per WP:VnT, or per WP: GIGO?). Absolutely no criticism of you personally - I think you've doing a really commendable job on the page. Support! 109.157.83.50 ( talk) 18:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I was just looking at your recent edit summary about "symptoms". Yes, agreed about depression, as in "feeling depressed". But not for Trousseau sign/syndrome - something people couldn't specifically complain of, as in "I've got a [whatever] ache", etc. Cheers, 109.157.83.50 ( talk) 15:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
If you haven't already, could you review my recent minor edits to the above article? I would appreciate the benefit of your greater familiarity with the material. Cheers, Basie ( talk) 19:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! I undid your addition of Pancreatic cancer to the FAC page, since you missed a couple of steps in the nomination process. Please see steps 3 and 4 under "Nomination procedure" at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. You got the template on to Talk:Pancreatic cancer correctly, but you have to click the red link to create the nomination page before you place it in the list. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hepatoid tumor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology. 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) 09:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't know what to say, John. I'm sorry for the disruption, but I really don't feel I have anything to apologise for. I felt I'd done everything in a non-conflictual way... I hope Sandy comes round to see that. I've always had a lot of time for her contributions. :) 86.164.164.29 ( talk) 19:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
There are ongoing problems with the lung cancer staging diagrams that I pointed out three months ago. [9] & [10] Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I've done my best to fill some of the gaps (per JFW's FAC point). Of course, you'll probably feel that the prose needs some simplification. Best, 109.158.8.201 ( talk) 15:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 14:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Floating the idea that the header, "mechanism" might be better as "precursors". I am not making the change without discussion given the advanced state of the article. However, "mechanism" could refer to almost any aspect. "Precursors" seems to be what the section is specifically addressing. Within the section it is clear that progression is not inevitable. FeatherPluma ( talk) 13:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Likewise for your 2015. Change made (on a fly by visit). FeatherPluma ( talk) 16:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it does. Is there a specific aspect about which you have a reservation? FeatherPluma ( talk) 23:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see the references. My first impression is there is "definitional promotion" therein, but please let me mull it over - I'll post in 24 - 36 hours. Thanks. FeatherPluma ( talk) 00:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks, 86, for undergirding this in a detailed way. FeatherPluma ( talk) 16:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
John :), please see my edit summary here. Because a treatment – even if it's the only potentially curative one – is technically possible (ie feasible/doable), doesn't mean it's necessarily the best thing to do for the patient. This is an area where insights from nurses (@ WhatamIdoing: ping) is key.
I'd also query the wording of this sentence: "The most crucial decision to be made after diagnosis is whether surgical removal of the tumor is possible, as this is the only cure for this cancer." Suggest "appropriate" (or something similar) instead of "possible".
The source says: "Although the best chance of long-term survival for patients with localized pancreatic cancer is through complete resection of the primary lesion, the systemic nature of pancreatic cancer at diagnosis, the impact of pancreatectomy on quality of life and the relatively low chance of long-term survival must all be taken into account when selecting patients who will most benefit from surgery." [13]
Have to run now, 86.181.67.166 ( talk) 19:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 14:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The cited source contains statements such as "the optimal treatment first and foremost depends on careful accurate staging" but makes no mention that I can see of a "most crucial decision", or words to that effect.
The most crucial decision to beA key assessment that is made after diagnosis is whether surgical removal of the tumor is possible (see [[#Staging|Staging]])...
Please feel free to move this – I wouldn't know how – to FAC; I've already apologised for the fact that this discussion inadvertently ended up here.) 86.181.67.166 ( talk) 12:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
John, kindly realize that in no way have I been having "a party"... For me it's not fun - these are serious questions, especially since FAs are intended to represent Wikipedia's best work, and therefore effectively serve as a model. Fyi, I put considerable thought into how I might communicate the substance of these concerns while doing my best not to offend the sensibilities of a hard-working colleague such as yourself, when I know you're under pressure. I have been putting work into this page in support of the collaboration you've been building with CRUK, which I think can be very valuable. Please also understand that as a professional medical writer I feel an inner responsibility to raise issues like this. And it hasn't always been easy... I've been effectively pushed off the FAC page for absurd (imo) reasons, on which occasion you kindly defended my contributions there. And I've genuinely tried to be discreet, following Sandy's expressions of discomfort, while continuing (like you) to do my best for the article and the serious subject matter it presents. I explained above why I was raising the issue on this page. But, as so often unfortunately on Wikipedia, damned if one does, damned if one doesn't, it seems... When (frankly) I might actually be rather enjoying myself quietly editing in other fields... or pursuing other interests off Wikipedia altogether. 86.181.67.166 ( talk) 18:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
To like or not to like? ( eg here) 86.181.67.166 ( talk) 09:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.—Given that the remedy has just been enacted, I am providing this notice to everybody who has participated in the discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page for their information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harpal Kumar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Institute for Cancer Research. 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) 09:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations for geting Pancreatic cancer promoted to Featured article.
I apologize for not being there to explicitly support; I was on a short break. It was clear though that all my comments had been answered.
See you soon in more medical articles. -- NikosGouliaros ( talk) 08:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for everything you've done with your work at CRUK. You've contributed so much in a short time and we are all very grateful! Best, Keilana| Parlez ici 19:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
hi , I left a question for you under the above title at wikiproject med, I apologize if it should have been placed here-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I have marked Wikipedia:Pancreatic cancer (version h) with {{ db-test}}. Remove the template if you object. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
John, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated will appear on the Main Page soon. The TFA text mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank ( push to talk) 20:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Wikipedia:Pancreatic cancer (version g), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Pancreatic cancer (version g) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Pancreatic cancer (version g) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. – Train2104 ( t • c) 03:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Wiki CRUK John! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hi Wiki CRUK John, per our discussion at Anatomical terms of location I'd like to present an easy and accessible training option for trainees. The guidelines for anatomy articles have recently been changed (see WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy), and we are trying to include a "Clinical significance" heading in all anatomy articles. Under this heading subheadings may include imaging, and the names of prominent diseases. An example may be found at Esophagus#Clinical significance or Pudendal nerve#Clinical significance. Diseases are:
I think getting trainees to write these summaries is an excellent training opportunity because:
I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Kind regards, -- LT910001 ( talk) 10:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey John,
I've cleaned up the transitions and sound on the new medical editor video. I'm still new to video editing but this is as good as it's going to get for a little bit. I saw that you wanted to know when a new version was up, so here you go. Hope it works. Ian Furst ( talk) 11:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
"National Institute for Health and Care Excellence" - should be said this is for the UK, or more accurately England and Wales" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Wondering on your feedback on the lead. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Brain tumor is also ready for you to look over it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreatic cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faces ( 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) 08:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Have worked on this one. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello John :) I think you already realise some of the very real practical obstacles in eliciting expert involvement. But if you were able to devise with CRUK a workable way of stimulating some sort of real, constructive participation, I think that could represent a great human resource. Individuals from teams working on a particular topic will be on familiar first-name terms with an entire corpus of relevant primary and secondary sources; this is especially true if they've been involved in writing a review on the subject. Of course, all humans have POVs, and scientists are no exception. Having a basic understanding of how selection of secondary sources that satisfy MEDRS is used by us as a tool for composition of reliable NPOV content would obviously be essential. As would simplicity of interaction, imo. I feel a start could be finding some simple ways of flagging a) outright blunders; b) areas that need more subtle work, in terms of coverage/completeness, updating, correction, nuance, etc. One thing these guys could probably do rather easily is point to specific MEDRS (eg via the PMID, or by citing Author, Journal, year) that could be consulted for improvements. But doubtless you'll have thought all this through for yourself. In which case, my apologies, 86.128.169.211 ( talk) 13:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Supports "it is second to breast cancer among female-only cancers"? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi John. How's the upgrading going? Can you point me to a list of the first-reviewed articles, please? If any are being neglected, point me to them and I'll be happy to have a go at one. - Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm reading up on esophageal cancer, but it'll be another week or two before you see much action on the article. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
John, great interaction with you at Pancreatic cancer. I am a curmudgeon, and anyone who gets along with me off the bat is a Wikipedia gem. I'd like to suggest that you have a look at the "Jack Andraka" article, later in the day or tomorrow. (Give me at least a couple of hours from this timestamp, to see the Talk section I add, as a prelude to major editing.) After reading the article, have a look at this source, for balance in scientific perspective: [2]. There are a variety of issues with the article, as my Talk entry (and forthcoming edits) will make clear, but I would appreciate your eventual perspective/edits regarding the fundamental matter of the chosen biomarker, after you see my flurry of major edits appear this week. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 15:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce
This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.
note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you * sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject MedicineSpotlight - Simplified article translation
Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.
Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.
What's happening?
I've ( CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as
Dutch,
Polish, and
Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not
MEDRS (
Polish,
German,
Romanian,
Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [5]
News in short
Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF ( talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF ( talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreatic cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMI. 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) 09:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi John! I know I said on Doc James' page that I would need a couple weeks to finish up but I've just gone through my last major source for endometrial cancer and am sort of at a loss for where to go from here. Would you or another CRUK person be willing to provide a sort of mid-development review? Thank you so much - and I do understand if you're not available. Best, Keilana| Parlez ici 18:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Wiki CRUK John!
Thank you for your contributions to WP.
Just thought I'd drop a note Re: our discussion on Cancer screening. I couldn't agree more that there are too few content-adders (sounds like a dangerous snake, I prefer "prose writers"). I do aspire to improving my writing skills and finding the time and drive to add more in content to articles. Despite the fact I am a Registered Nurse in Intensive Care who avidly studies evidence based medicine and critical care medicine in general, I find writing on medical topics challenging (Bios seem much easier to me).
What I do a lot of on WP is verification. I find the sources cited, format them "properly" (IMO with a modicum of respect for CITEVAR) and do my best to provide links that give free access or point users in the best direction for them to find their access options. I also frequently actually read the sources (I have a variety of means of access). It is truly shocking to me how frequently I find sources misrepresented or plainly used to support facts they don't contain. With an interest in both medicine and fringe topics I find myself working on articles that are heavily discussed on talk pages require close attention to MEDRS, or have a single primary editor. To comply with policy (and foster consensus) I frequently post suggestions to talk pages rather than editing boldly.
I also consider myself a fairly competent researcher but don't always have the time or motivation to edit and write prose so I often add references I have found a "Further reading" section (new or existing). I appreciate greatly the work of prose writers and post articles I think are important or in need of revision to Project Medicine Talk or the Fringe Theories NB. I hope my work on sources is of help to those who would do the writing and perhaps over time some editors will find that when I post an article I have facilitated editing by improving sources.
Thanks for pointing to US centrism, I will keep it in mind when researching (I'm thinking WHO, NHS and EU) and editing.
Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 19:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreatic cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon. 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) 08:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. We'll probably see each other around anyway, but can I have a brief word before 11:00 am? I'll be in Costa's coffee shop from 10:00, or can track you down if you tell me where you'll be. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Diagram showing where the lymph nodes are in the neck CRUK 384.svg note to self Johnbod ( talk) 17:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Medcan Clinic#Notability. Cheers!
P.S. I thank you for the input you have provided at Talk:Medcan Clinic already. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 09:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi John! I just wanted to let you know that I've put about 3/4 of the images -all of the obvious ones - uploaded by CRUK into the appropriate articles. Do you know if any more images will be uploaded in the future, or is this it? Thanks so much, Keilana| Parlez ici 04:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Esophageal cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon. 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) 09:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I happened upon your edit for article "Precancerous condition" and noted that you had added the statement "After 2005 both the terms [precancer and carcinoma in situ, presumably] have been clubbed together and is now known as potentially malignant lesions." I could not find evidence to support this statement, and was wondering if you could clarify or provide a reference. I have removed the statement in the meanwhile. Thanks! Dr G ( talk) 20:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for thinking so carefully about the way to portray the prognosis in diseases with poor survival rates. Considering the patient and their family as an audience is really important in these situations. I'm glad that you are around helping write medical articles. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 04:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
Hi CRUK John, I know you have previously mentioned some reviews of medical articles by subject experts. Are those reviews difficult to arrange? I was wondering if, over the course of the next year or so, Cancer Research UK would be able to arrange for several reviews of anatomical articles. Anatomical literacy is an important component in how people understand cancer care and the materials delivered to them. Reviews could be of some of our most popular articles ( WP:ANAT500), which receive in aggregate now about 27 million views / month. What do you think about this suggestion? I would love to hear from non-Wiki users about some of our articles. Unlike Medicine, which may in fact have fairly well fleshed-out articles, these reviews would also be able to offer some key points about how articles could develop. Looking at sympathetic nervous system made me come here, as I could not help thinking what a subject expert would have to say about this. What are your thoughts about this? Kindly, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 03:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Incidence. 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) 10:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure why you are removing these? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You are referring to these edits [7]. You will note:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Page is looking good.
Complimenti!
109.157.83.50 (
talk) 13:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm done making edits for now by the way, so enjoy not getting edit conflicts, if I happened to trigger any for you. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that revert John, never nice I know. Despite being tight on time I did at least engage on the PR page, and the issue is a real one. See, for example, this - the cartoon is a classic among epidemiologists. I think we really do need to be cautious in our claims and wording (per WP:VnT, or per WP: GIGO?). Absolutely no criticism of you personally - I think you've doing a really commendable job on the page. Support! 109.157.83.50 ( talk) 18:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I was just looking at your recent edit summary about "symptoms". Yes, agreed about depression, as in "feeling depressed". But not for Trousseau sign/syndrome - something people couldn't specifically complain of, as in "I've got a [whatever] ache", etc. Cheers, 109.157.83.50 ( talk) 15:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
If you haven't already, could you review my recent minor edits to the above article? I would appreciate the benefit of your greater familiarity with the material. Cheers, Basie ( talk) 19:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! I undid your addition of Pancreatic cancer to the FAC page, since you missed a couple of steps in the nomination process. Please see steps 3 and 4 under "Nomination procedure" at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. You got the template on to Talk:Pancreatic cancer correctly, but you have to click the red link to create the nomination page before you place it in the list. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hepatoid tumor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology. 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) 09:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't know what to say, John. I'm sorry for the disruption, but I really don't feel I have anything to apologise for. I felt I'd done everything in a non-conflictual way... I hope Sandy comes round to see that. I've always had a lot of time for her contributions. :) 86.164.164.29 ( talk) 19:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
There are ongoing problems with the lung cancer staging diagrams that I pointed out three months ago. [9] & [10] Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I've done my best to fill some of the gaps (per JFW's FAC point). Of course, you'll probably feel that the prose needs some simplification. Best, 109.158.8.201 ( talk) 15:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 14:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Floating the idea that the header, "mechanism" might be better as "precursors". I am not making the change without discussion given the advanced state of the article. However, "mechanism" could refer to almost any aspect. "Precursors" seems to be what the section is specifically addressing. Within the section it is clear that progression is not inevitable. FeatherPluma ( talk) 13:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Likewise for your 2015. Change made (on a fly by visit). FeatherPluma ( talk) 16:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it does. Is there a specific aspect about which you have a reservation? FeatherPluma ( talk) 23:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see the references. My first impression is there is "definitional promotion" therein, but please let me mull it over - I'll post in 24 - 36 hours. Thanks. FeatherPluma ( talk) 00:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks, 86, for undergirding this in a detailed way. FeatherPluma ( talk) 16:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
John :), please see my edit summary here. Because a treatment – even if it's the only potentially curative one – is technically possible (ie feasible/doable), doesn't mean it's necessarily the best thing to do for the patient. This is an area where insights from nurses (@ WhatamIdoing: ping) is key.
I'd also query the wording of this sentence: "The most crucial decision to be made after diagnosis is whether surgical removal of the tumor is possible, as this is the only cure for this cancer." Suggest "appropriate" (or something similar) instead of "possible".
The source says: "Although the best chance of long-term survival for patients with localized pancreatic cancer is through complete resection of the primary lesion, the systemic nature of pancreatic cancer at diagnosis, the impact of pancreatectomy on quality of life and the relatively low chance of long-term survival must all be taken into account when selecting patients who will most benefit from surgery." [13]
Have to run now, 86.181.67.166 ( talk) 19:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 14:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The cited source contains statements such as "the optimal treatment first and foremost depends on careful accurate staging" but makes no mention that I can see of a "most crucial decision", or words to that effect.
The most crucial decision to beA key assessment that is made after diagnosis is whether surgical removal of the tumor is possible (see [[#Staging|Staging]])...
Please feel free to move this – I wouldn't know how – to FAC; I've already apologised for the fact that this discussion inadvertently ended up here.) 86.181.67.166 ( talk) 12:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
John, kindly realize that in no way have I been having "a party"... For me it's not fun - these are serious questions, especially since FAs are intended to represent Wikipedia's best work, and therefore effectively serve as a model. Fyi, I put considerable thought into how I might communicate the substance of these concerns while doing my best not to offend the sensibilities of a hard-working colleague such as yourself, when I know you're under pressure. I have been putting work into this page in support of the collaboration you've been building with CRUK, which I think can be very valuable. Please also understand that as a professional medical writer I feel an inner responsibility to raise issues like this. And it hasn't always been easy... I've been effectively pushed off the FAC page for absurd (imo) reasons, on which occasion you kindly defended my contributions there. And I've genuinely tried to be discreet, following Sandy's expressions of discomfort, while continuing (like you) to do my best for the article and the serious subject matter it presents. I explained above why I was raising the issue on this page. But, as so often unfortunately on Wikipedia, damned if one does, damned if one doesn't, it seems... When (frankly) I might actually be rather enjoying myself quietly editing in other fields... or pursuing other interests off Wikipedia altogether. 86.181.67.166 ( talk) 18:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
To like or not to like? ( eg here) 86.181.67.166 ( talk) 09:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.—Given that the remedy has just been enacted, I am providing this notice to everybody who has participated in the discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page for their information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harpal Kumar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Institute for Cancer Research. 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) 09:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations for geting Pancreatic cancer promoted to Featured article.
I apologize for not being there to explicitly support; I was on a short break. It was clear though that all my comments had been answered.
See you soon in more medical articles. -- NikosGouliaros ( talk) 08:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for everything you've done with your work at CRUK. You've contributed so much in a short time and we are all very grateful! Best, Keilana| Parlez ici 19:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
hi , I left a question for you under the above title at wikiproject med, I apologize if it should have been placed here-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I have marked Wikipedia:Pancreatic cancer (version h) with {{ db-test}}. Remove the template if you object. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
John, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated will appear on the Main Page soon. The TFA text mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank ( push to talk) 20:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Wikipedia:Pancreatic cancer (version g), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Pancreatic cancer (version g) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Pancreatic cancer (version g) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. – Train2104 ( t • c) 03:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)