![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 70 | ← | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
Hi all - we have an article about IVIG (and several individual brands of it,) but we don't seem to have an article about sub-cutaneous immunoglobulin. Would anyone be interested in drafting such an article with me? I should have all the necessary journal access, and any that I don't should be coming up in the next couple weeks. I admit that I do have a bit of a direct personal interest in the matter as I have CVID and am on igg infusions myself, but in any case view this as a pretty big article set to be missing. Many newly diagnosed patients turn to Wikipedia for guidance (whether or not they necessarily should,) and IVIG vs SCIG is one of the bigger choices a newly diagnosed patient in need of some form of IGG will have to make. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 01:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Some discussion about how best to summarize a source at Talk:Gluten-free diet#Wording for autism. Would appreciate help in finding les mots justes. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's been a lot of committed activity on this topic and the NCGS material has now spread widely through some of our articles. The POV is being markedly recalibrated (e.g. in this lede to the edit). By my understanding NGCS is something of a controversial condition the classification, diagnosis and treatment of which is rather up in the air. By contrast it seems to me Wikipedia is now rather certain on the topic. Could probably do with a look from better-qualified editors than me to judge. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Done
Can someone with experience at moving pages and protection please look at what has happened again with
Omeprazole, where this has been moved to
Omez. This is just one proprietary name for this drug. Perhaps we do need a little more though in the omeprazole page on trade names to prevent this SPA returning. Thanks! (No time today)
Jrfw51 (
talk)
12:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello all. Reflux nephropathy has quite a complicated and dense wp:first sentence when the lead is supposed to be accessible, unfortunately: "Reflux nephropathy, RN is a term applied when small and scarred kidneys (chronic pyelonephritis, CPN) are associated with vesico-ureteric reflux (VUR)." Meanwhile, google pops up "is a condition in which the kidneys are damaged by the backward flow of urine into the kidney" from [4]. So if someone has the time (I do not at the moment) to address this, I think it would benefit the readers. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you aware of Libgen? As a proponent of Academic journal publishing reform it is a source of journal articles which may not be available through university access. It may be good to make sure coverage of this topic is unbiased when it comes to information on medical publishing. (I've done my best to find high quality sources.) Distrait cognizance ( talk) 10:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-things-that-made-my-hospital-stay-weird-as-hell/ - see #7. Johnbod ( talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Participants here often create a lot of content and have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable. I can imagine that the pharmaceuticals area may have issues with undeclared paid editing and sockpuppetery. Detecting and handling this must give you good experience. Well, these are considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even find out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to seek the opinion of other WPMED editors regarding whether claims about gun control being effective/ineffective at reducing gun deaths fall under the purview of MEDRS. If so, we should remove a fair number of the sources in the article gun control because they are primary. Everymorning (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: This isn't about a disease, but I'm not sure where to report it. There seem to be plenty of books which talk about this subject. Should I add some references? Should I report it at the Anatomy wikiproject?— Anne Delong ( talk) 11:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Anne Delong – WP:Neuroscience is reasonable active, at least Tryptofish is and he posts there. :) CFCF 💌 📧 18:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Could be tidied a bit more. Have removed the direct quote and added a few other refs. Will merge later if no-one else does it first. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 18:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This diff showed up on my watchlist, and a review of that diff and their contribs going back to 2008 shows that they appear to be adding material related to one particular author. I don't know enough about this area to know what's what, but I thought I'd bring it up here for a little more scrutiny from those who might. For example, the page N-localizer seems largely devoted to this author, and the use of this particular technique/device has been added by this particular user across a number of pages related to radiology; oddly, a pubmed search for N-localizer only brings up two articles, written by this author, one of which appears to be trying to push against what they feel are "misconceptions" about who actually invented the technique/device... Yobol ( talk) 03:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
would appreciate any help with this important article, thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor on Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome wants to add information about "research that is currently being conducted on me and several other patients", first without a source and now with a book of case studies that I've questioned. KateWishing ( talk) 00:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, editors. Here's another old draft on a medical topic. If this is a potential article, it will need to be moved off the user page and into Draft space. If not, it can be deleted under db-g13, as long as no one edits it.— Anne Delong ( talk) 05:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Are any of you interested in WP:WikiProject Death? There's a discussion about whether the photo of a human skull in their WikiProject banner should be removed on the grounds that it is "tasteless" or "offensive". The discussion is centralized at Template talk:WikiProject Death#Images. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Please join a requested move talk there...more eyes needed. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
18:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Do people agree that this is photoshopped or do you think it is real?
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with TenOfAllTrades the following web-app which analyzes for image manipulation http://29a.ch/sandbox/2012/imageerrorlevelanalysis/ doesn't show anything that indicates photoshop use. Either someone who is very professional at what they do changed this image as a raw, but the low resolution/quality seems to indicate a consumer camera was used to take this image – why it likely is real. CFCF 💌 📧 21:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Goniewicz, Maciej L.; Hajek, Peter; McRobbie, Hayden (2014). "Nicotine content of electronic cigarettes, its release in vapour and its consistency across batches: regulatory implications" (PDF). Addiction. 109 (3): 500–507. doi: 10.1111/add.12410. ISSN 0965-2140. PMID 24345184.
Is this source unreliable or reliable? See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#2014_study. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you add epidemics to the Category of History of medicine? I made a page on the Cocoliztli epidemic of 1576 and am not sure if I can. JerrySa1 ( talk) 14:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Do we have an article for post-influenza enteropathy under some other name? Should we, or is it basically the same as Enteropathy? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Several new editors have recently added extensive medical use information to Passiflora incarnata. It could probably use the review of medical experts. 72.94.61.22 ( talk) 12:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on now re category naming:
This may apply also to many other categories of interest to WikiProject Medicine. See:
67.0.98.166 ( talk) 16:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
By the way, all I wanted to do here was create a category for articles about people with dissociative disorders other than DID. Sigh. That category already has content, it just hasn't been created. It needs to be created so it can be included in broader categories. 67.0.98.166 ( talk) 16:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's another old draft about a medical topic. Promotional aspects can be removed if this is a notable topic. Should the page be kept and improved, or should it be redirected to Protein Sciences?— Anne Delong ( talk) 22:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
There has been some vandalism here and I am not sure if I can catch it all, I could use some help. Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 23:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
You know...I know everyone is pretty busy but I would like to share with you what I just deleted from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention article:
some content from the CDC page
|
---|
CDC zombie apocalypse outreach campaignOn May 16, 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's blog published an article instructing the public on what to do to prepare for a zombie invasion. While the article did not claim that such a scenario was possible, it did use the popular culture appeal as a means of urging citizens to prepare for all potential hazards, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and floods. [1] According to David Daigle, the Associate Director for Communications, Public Health Preparedness and Response, the idea arose when his team was discussing their upcoming hurricane information campaign and Daigle mused that "we say pretty much the same things every year, in the same way, and I just wonder how many people are paying attention." A social media employee mentioned that the subject of zombies had come up a lot on Twitter when she had been tweeting about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and radiation. The team realized that a campaign like this would most likely reach a different audience from the one that normally pays attention to hurricane preparedness warnings and went to work on the zombie campaign, launching it right before hurricane season began. "The whole idea was, if you're prepared for a zombie apocalypse, you're prepared for pretty much anything," said Daigle. [2] Once the blog article became popular, the CDC announced an open contest for YouTube submissions of the most creative and effective videos covering preparedness for a zombie apocalypse (or apocalypse of any kind), to be judged by the "CDC Zombie Task Force". Submissions were open until October 11, 2011. [3] They also released a zombie themed graphic novella available on their website. [4] Zombie-themed educational materials for teachers are available on the site. [5]
|
As a CDC contractor I do not work on this particular program, but I can verify that Zombie Preparedness is a CDC initiative. "As it turns out what first began as a tongue in cheek campaign to engage new audiences with preparedness messages has proven to be a very effective platform." James Hare (NIOSH) ( talk) 14:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello again medical experts. I plan to accept this draft about a doctor, but I'm not sure what to do about the section titled "Education". It's likely that this material should be incorporated in sentence form into the other sections, but since it's acronyms and abbreviations I wouldn't know how to to this. — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
There is some very strange content in this article. It seems like someone with an ax to grind wrote it and so its POV is very bad. Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 15:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This article was recently brought to my attention. Based upon a simple pubmed search of the name – [24] (1 primary source journal article found) – I'm inclined to delete the Wikipedia article. Does anyone have any input/objection to this before I go ahead and WP:PROD the article? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
We have this ref [25] so it has got some notice. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am seeking opinions on these edits [26] to the lead of Applied behavior analysis. I am discussing the reliability of the sources with another editor, but we have reached an impasse. You can read the discussion here: Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#Poor_sourcing.2C_promotional_links. I realize other WikiProjects are more relevant to the article, but they do not appear to be active. Thanks. CatPath ( talk) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It would be great, if someone knowledgeable could have a look at this recent edit please. As it lacked sources for several statements, included "convenient" links to companies, and added some less-than-neutral language, I have reverted it for now. But to be fair, some of that content may be a valid improvement (I wouldn't know as total ignoramus in that area), but it needs a check for accuracy and neutrality. GermanJoe ( talk) 15:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
At DRAFT:Physical exercise and Mental illnesses we have a class assignment as an article. Anyone know what to do with it? -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 07:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, would anyone possibly have access to the following article ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25474485)? If so, can someone please share it with me? I don't have access and it looks like it would be a good article to use for the acne article since the research section is a bit sparse at this time. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
TylerDurden8823, good that you managed to get the article, but I checked and double-checked my inbox, and there is nothing there (not spam either). I've never known to have problems with Wikipedia e-mails before, but you can find my full address here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/Sign_up#Contacts (don't want to plaster it all over for spam-bots). I'd be happy if you sent me a mail so that next time you're stuck I can try and help you at once. CFCF 💌 📧 06:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The WMF analytics team is presenting a pair of talks on the subject of m:Wikipedia as the front matter to all research this Friday December 4, 2015 (two days from now) at 12:00 noon PST. They will talk about unique identifiers and scholarly citations in Wikipedia. One of the speakers is from CrossRef, and his subject is primarily about how Wikipedia citations bring non-scientists into contact with the scientific literature. The talk will be broadcast on YouTube, so that anyone can watch it. There is more information on Meta. Please join if you're interested. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
good info [29]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe the article Cock and ball torture, and in particular the section Cock and ball torture#Safety, could do with some attention from medical editors, as I think parts of it are definitely matters of medical concern. Given the wide variety of sex-problem-related human experience that is observed in emergency rooms worldwide every day (for example, the extraction of rectal foreign bodies, the emergency removal of metal cock rings, or even more exotic things like damage due to scrotal infusion) I think it's likely that there is relevant medical literature in this area. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the disputed edit. KateWishing ( talk) 13:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Further input welcome Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I request the opinions of WikiProject Medicine participants at Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Another reform proposal - split infobox into "human readable" and "non human readable" and call from Wikidata. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The solution is to not use Template:Navbox, or refer to any of its classes. This is a hard-coded table, but something like this ought to work:
Classification | ICD- 10: M10 • ICD- 9-CM: 274.00 • OMIM: 138900 • DiseasesDB: 29031 |
External resources | MedlinePlus: 000422 • eMedicine: emerg/221 • Patient UK: Gout • MeSH: D006073 |
The details can be tweaked, but this is just a quick demo to show the overall concept. Since it's just two columns (unlike {{ Arthropathies and related conditions}}, which follows it on Gout), it should adapt fairly well to narrow screens. Perhaps if someone has a smartphone, you'll look at it and see whether it's readable. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a minor disagreement at Clear aligners concerning whether an article on a medical product should list no/some/all brands. For example, this edit removed two major brand names from the lead (brands discussed in the article), and added five brand names to the body of the article. A comment here suggests that it is routine to add all brand names under which a drug is sold. Questions: What is the background regarding brand names for drug articles? Any thoughts on how brands should be handled at clear aligners? Johnuniq ( talk) 05:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm about to log off for the day but notice a lot of recent activity here, some of which is based on poor sourcing. Also a lot of material is being introduced about gold nanoparticles into other related articles by a number of new accounts named Nanosomething which is obviously suspicious. Editors less tired than I am might want to take a look ... Alexbrn ( talk) 19:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I created a page recently on the Cocoliztli epidemic of 1576. Is this within the scope of this wikiproject? JerrySa1 ( talk) 18:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see the article and the Talk page. [Note:—
169.230.155.123 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. --
169.230.155.123 (
talk)
16:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Chamomile...just to be clear here ...are we saying it is good to " treat wounds" and "treat headaches and insomnia" and so on ?? We sure that the limited studies of camomile oil say this vs what people claim? -- Moxy ( talk) 21:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Rape#Use of "victim" in place of "person," and expansion to the Definitions section. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the last version of this section has been archived, so I figured I'll just start another one instead of reverting the archive bot. Pretty much all of ENWP's content about immunoglobulin therapy (which includes several RoAs: intramuscular, subcutaneous, and intravenuous) is located at one article - IVIG. I have a draft here and although I know it doesn't address all problems in the current article (there are whole sections I haven't touched yet,) I suspect it would be preferable to the current article. While I intend to work on it further, how would people feel about moving my draft live to immunoglobulin therapy, and redirecting SCIG, IVIG, and IMIG all to the new partially done draft? Kevin Gorman ( talk) 03:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, there's been a bit of debate at psoriasis regarding whether or not a picture of genitalia affected by psoriasis is appropriate (or necessary). Please see diffs here [33] What are your thoughts on this matter? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 21:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Derm condition. Should be a fair number of images. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Intimate partner violence#Michael P Johnson's Typology Theory. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Paracetamol#Alzheimer appears to be a paste of the abstract of the Jones article that it cites. [40] It does seem like a summary of the Jones article should be in paracetamol--could someone from here fix it? I'd probably mess it up if I tried. Thanks. 173.228.123.101 ( talk) 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
relating the ubiquitous paracetamol (Modick et al., 2014) to the worldwide increase of Alzheimer’s disease (Jones, 2014) appears somewhat far-fetched". KateWishing ( talk) 03:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#WP:RfC: Is the current lead sentence best for the article?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
RfC closed-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I recently edited the article on Clitoral Erection by adding a sentence about Clitoral Erectile Dysfunction. Specifically, I stated there is a hypothesis that lack of stimulation during early brain development may cause atrophy of the relative brain areas that control clitoral erectile function, resulting in permanent clitoral erectile dysfunction, although empirical research is necessary for confirmation. I also included a reference to a paper on academia.edu ( https://www.academia.edu/s/559e1d73ea) that describes the hypothesis in more detail and offers some documentation. I made no other claims except that the hypothesis exists and its existence may be verified outside Wikipedia.
My contribution was quickly deleted by an editor who referred me to Wikipedia's Medical Source Guidelines, WP:MED I asked on that persons Talk page why my contribution had been deleted, and the person stated "...the source you added is not up to medical standards." I disputed that criticism and then my contribution was also called "Fringe" and "Editorializing," even though my contribution contained no claims of certainty or even probability, and included no words like "clearly" etc. WP:MED Guidelines do also say: "Neither of these pages are 'laws', but are intended to give, inspire, and organize our contributions. They should never prevent anyone from writing and improving medical articles!"
So why wasn't my contribution modified for improvement instead of completely erased without warning? Newnamenow ( talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
CFCF Thanks for your input. But the content I added didn't make any assertions of fact other than to report that there is a hypothesis, and I provided a reference that anyone can check to verify that the hypothesis exists. If the reference was the real issue, then why wasn't my edit marked or modified (e.g. remove the reference and note "needs citation") rather than deleted completely and as quickly as possible? Wikipedia encourages contributors to "be bold." If someone objects to a particular edit by modifying it, that's editing. But if someone responds to a potentially controversial topic by silencing the whole topic, that's not editing - it's censorship. Newnamenow ( talk) 12:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Note: I am the editor Newnamenow is referring to, if you don't already know; see User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#Clitoral erection article. A WP:Permalink for it is here. SMcCandlish stepped in to discuss the matter with Newnamenow at my talk page, and Doc James addressed Newnamenow at User talk:Newnamenow. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Looie496 This discussion here has the appearance of being a technical question concerning Wikipedia policy, and despite the potentially controversial nature of the hypothesis of clitoral erectile dysfunction and its possible cause - if it becomes widely known the careers of some political opportunists and profiteers in the child sex abuse prevention and rescue business would be in jeopardy, as well as casting doubt on the traditional and cherished practice of anti-sex education in early childhood - I will give critics the benefit of the doubt by assuming their intentions are constructive and impartial and their statements of their motives for deleting my edit are sincere. However, I will note that Drcrazy102 has suggested that I should have initiated a discussion on the Clitoral Erection Talk page (which I had already done), but Flyer22 Reborn and other supporters of the deletion have largely confined their comments to Flyer22 Reborn's Talk page (or attempted to redirect the discussion to that page) rather than defending the deletion on the Clitoral Erection Talk page. Newnamenow ( talk) 10:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
A recent major expansion of Fetal rights was performed [41], and subsequently hidden behind a m-tagged edit. I have not had time to go through the entire text. I am informing this page of it because it seems to have slipped under the radar, and especially the removal of tags marking issues with the page is troubling. I question that these were removed without discussion, and that the current edition really is without the following issues:
{{Unbalanced|date=January 2011}} {{POV-check|date=January 2011}}
CFCF 💌 📧 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal here that WMF develops some tools for dealing with citations of withdrawn academic journal articles. This idea was discussed in this 2012 WT:MED thread. If you think this would be a good use of WMF's time, please let them know. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What do people think of this method of removing synonyms from the lead? Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 14:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard I have proposed that we make some kind of template that will allow us to indicate non-evidence-based therapeutic modalities in a more consistent way. [44]. This follows a concern that the way that we indicate lack of evidence is inconsistent and may ultimately lead to confusion. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 18:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
more opinions--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
10:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Was this edit appropriate? My medical English isn't good enough to tell whether "exhaustion" is a synonym for "fatigue". Thanks -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 09:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Some of the sources added in this edit don't seem to meet MEDRS, but I am posting here to ask if others agree or not. Everymorning (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sexual obsessions#Recently added material. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Note: Since Everymorning beat me to posting, I've merged the section I created with this one. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
There have been a number of edits by an editor relating to gluten currently at wheat and earlier at non-celiac gluten sensitivity, such as disputes over this edit (prevalence of it, what is is, etc.). [46]. Could use some eyes from members here, especially since this topic can get into WP:FRINGE territory sometimes. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments appreciated here Talk:Chronic_obstructive_pulmonary_disease#Stem_cells Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
First off I want to apologize. When I relaunched the MCOTM I really did want to stick with it but some personnel family matters came up right after it began. That said, for those who participated, what are your thoughts? Did you think the MCOTM was beneficial to the Transverse myelitis article as a whole? [Here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Transverse_myelitis&oldid=673477707] is the before and [here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Transverse_myelitis&oldid=688582387] is it today. Overall, I think the article was improved very much, but still needs more work before it can be considered for a good article nomination. My thought is we should discuss what went wrong and what went right to determine if MCOTM is something we should keep doing. Until then, I think we should keep transverse myelitis as the article as the article of the month. So, what are your thoughts, questions, and concerns? Peter.C • talk • contribs 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've added a bit of mechanism info to the Sodium_picosulfate article. I don't typically edit medical articles, so it'd be useful if someone from this Wikiproject could cast their eye over it to check if I've made any errors. Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 22:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
We have an updated offline medical app [48]. Now includes all of pharmacology and anatomy. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
would appreciate any help with this important article/stub, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Annual Reviews is a publisher of review articles in the sciences and social sciences. Its articles cover major topics in each subject area every few years, with other special topics appearing occasionally. For more information see their website. This partnership provides access to their entire Biomedical Life collection. There are up to 100 one-year accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. Please sign up at WP:Annual Reviews!
Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) ( talk) 22:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to participate | on this Rfc your opinion is most welcome! KoshVorlon 13:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
"In a response to rampant poor patient satisfaction scores and an overall demand of patients for more autonomy in their care, a group of internet start-ups have decided to open a network of hospitals where no physicians are required, where patients can receive care they are comfortable with based on their Google searches. [1]
Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Harry Glicken#Hair pulling. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 02:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
...needs some TLC or LCP. Bazj ( talk) 15:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:Cancer deaths by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Big_iron ( talk) 12:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
15:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I am an employee at Manifest, a marketing agency representing Abbott Vascular. Last month I requested edits on Talk pages of several Wikipedia pages: Percutaneous coronary intervention, Coronary stent, Bare-metal stent, Drug-eluting stent, and Bioresorbable stents.
So far, there has been one response, which was on the Drug-eluting stent page, and we are working on requested adjustments for the requests for that page.
Would someone be able to let me know how I may go about having the other requested changes reviewed/made?
Thank you for any input in this regard.
Tom at Manifest ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I have recently used the term anorexia in an article as a description of symptoms. Unfortunately, the wiki link leads directly to anorexia nervosa. One is a symptom and the other is a treatable condition. These two terms need to be distinct. I don't know how to fix this. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 12:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Just seen a newly-created article about a 'non-incorporated' UK charity called the Immunity Resource Foundation. The article so far is entirely written by a user who discloses that they were paid to write the article. I'm concerned that the charity seems to be a front to promote HIV/AIDS denialism and that the article doesn't clearly explain this. Can someone look into this? 85.211.96.114 ( talk) 22:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Done
The following names exist for the same condition:
The most common by a factor of 7 is Essential thrombocythemia as seen here Pubmed. I was unable to move the article to the common name, could an administrator do this? CFCF 💌 📧 13:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I've stumbled upon yet another overlooked corner of Wikipedia – the field of gerontology and regenerative medicine. The article on regeneration in humans may include some of the most egregious examples, but the following articles could do with a good looking over:
Thanks, CFCF 💌 📧 20:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, lets make a list:
(See Index of topics related to life extension) Please, anyone feel free to add to this list without signing
User:The Transhumanist probably knows a lot about the articles related to this subject. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I've added the Party and play article to WikiProject Medicine because of the public health risk through unprotected sex with large numbers of sexual partners: see this BMJ editorial. I'd greatly appreciate any help editors on this project could bring to bringing this article up-to-date and improving the number and quality of citations. -- The Anome ( talk) 17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Just trimmed and placed here Talk:Antimicrobial_resistance#Text. Interesting overview here [52] that is much much less sesational. Not going to sell the tabloids but more accurate. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a user reverted the inclusion (as seen here) of the image. After that there was a discussion on the talk page. However, the controversy could not be resolved. Therefore, third opinions would be most welcome. Thanks to all.-- Saidmann ( talk) 15:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Just alerting editors of this project to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunnilingus tongue. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
13:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Some disagreement on what strength of sourcing is necessary to report a connection between these things. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey I was going through the article on one and a half syndrome and the page doesn't seem to specify what the ipsilateral side and the contralateral side suffer from. Can some one make this more clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitrimal ( talk • contribs) 07:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey folks! I've proposed merging 1994 plague epidemic in Surat into 1994 plague in India. It'd be great if some others could take a look and comment. ( Discuss). Thanks! Ajpolino ( talk) 03:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
As 2015 comes to a close I hope you don't mind if I use some electrons to express my appreciation for the participants in this project. I am just an itinerant editor; you all have created and shepherded the most comprehensive and available biomedical resource on Earth. We cannot know how far the ripples will go temporally, but geographically they are global. Thank you all. — soupvector ( talk) 16:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Tetanic contraction currently has no cites of any type at all to support it, which is not ideal for a medical article. Would anyone be interested in taking a look at it? -- The Anome ( talk) 13:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Editors here may remember that the "post-finasteride syndrome" article was deleted as non-notable. It appears that there is an attempt at coatracking the legitimacy of this "syndrome" on this foundation webpage, more eyes would be appreciated. Not sure that this foundation webpage meets WP:N criteria, either. Yobol ( talk) 18:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Will more editors please take a look to give their opinion? AlexBRN's most recent reversion merely says " Rv. to good, this ain't encyclopedic this stuff" which is a very unhelpful comment. The article is being accused of coatracking because many editors here don't want to acknowledge anything about post finasteride syndrome however when you have a foundation that's main purpose is dedicated to researching the syndrome the matter is nearly one in the same. Thanks. Doors22 ( talk) 13:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 70 | ← | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
Hi all - we have an article about IVIG (and several individual brands of it,) but we don't seem to have an article about sub-cutaneous immunoglobulin. Would anyone be interested in drafting such an article with me? I should have all the necessary journal access, and any that I don't should be coming up in the next couple weeks. I admit that I do have a bit of a direct personal interest in the matter as I have CVID and am on igg infusions myself, but in any case view this as a pretty big article set to be missing. Many newly diagnosed patients turn to Wikipedia for guidance (whether or not they necessarily should,) and IVIG vs SCIG is one of the bigger choices a newly diagnosed patient in need of some form of IGG will have to make. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 01:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Some discussion about how best to summarize a source at Talk:Gluten-free diet#Wording for autism. Would appreciate help in finding les mots justes. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's been a lot of committed activity on this topic and the NCGS material has now spread widely through some of our articles. The POV is being markedly recalibrated (e.g. in this lede to the edit). By my understanding NGCS is something of a controversial condition the classification, diagnosis and treatment of which is rather up in the air. By contrast it seems to me Wikipedia is now rather certain on the topic. Could probably do with a look from better-qualified editors than me to judge. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Done
Can someone with experience at moving pages and protection please look at what has happened again with
Omeprazole, where this has been moved to
Omez. This is just one proprietary name for this drug. Perhaps we do need a little more though in the omeprazole page on trade names to prevent this SPA returning. Thanks! (No time today)
Jrfw51 (
talk)
12:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello all. Reflux nephropathy has quite a complicated and dense wp:first sentence when the lead is supposed to be accessible, unfortunately: "Reflux nephropathy, RN is a term applied when small and scarred kidneys (chronic pyelonephritis, CPN) are associated with vesico-ureteric reflux (VUR)." Meanwhile, google pops up "is a condition in which the kidneys are damaged by the backward flow of urine into the kidney" from [4]. So if someone has the time (I do not at the moment) to address this, I think it would benefit the readers. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you aware of Libgen? As a proponent of Academic journal publishing reform it is a source of journal articles which may not be available through university access. It may be good to make sure coverage of this topic is unbiased when it comes to information on medical publishing. (I've done my best to find high quality sources.) Distrait cognizance ( talk) 10:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-things-that-made-my-hospital-stay-weird-as-hell/ - see #7. Johnbod ( talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Participants here often create a lot of content and have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable. I can imagine that the pharmaceuticals area may have issues with undeclared paid editing and sockpuppetery. Detecting and handling this must give you good experience. Well, these are considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even find out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to seek the opinion of other WPMED editors regarding whether claims about gun control being effective/ineffective at reducing gun deaths fall under the purview of MEDRS. If so, we should remove a fair number of the sources in the article gun control because they are primary. Everymorning (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: This isn't about a disease, but I'm not sure where to report it. There seem to be plenty of books which talk about this subject. Should I add some references? Should I report it at the Anatomy wikiproject?— Anne Delong ( talk) 11:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Anne Delong – WP:Neuroscience is reasonable active, at least Tryptofish is and he posts there. :) CFCF 💌 📧 18:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Could be tidied a bit more. Have removed the direct quote and added a few other refs. Will merge later if no-one else does it first. Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 18:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This diff showed up on my watchlist, and a review of that diff and their contribs going back to 2008 shows that they appear to be adding material related to one particular author. I don't know enough about this area to know what's what, but I thought I'd bring it up here for a little more scrutiny from those who might. For example, the page N-localizer seems largely devoted to this author, and the use of this particular technique/device has been added by this particular user across a number of pages related to radiology; oddly, a pubmed search for N-localizer only brings up two articles, written by this author, one of which appears to be trying to push against what they feel are "misconceptions" about who actually invented the technique/device... Yobol ( talk) 03:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
would appreciate any help with this important article, thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor on Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome wants to add information about "research that is currently being conducted on me and several other patients", first without a source and now with a book of case studies that I've questioned. KateWishing ( talk) 00:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, editors. Here's another old draft on a medical topic. If this is a potential article, it will need to be moved off the user page and into Draft space. If not, it can be deleted under db-g13, as long as no one edits it.— Anne Delong ( talk) 05:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Are any of you interested in WP:WikiProject Death? There's a discussion about whether the photo of a human skull in their WikiProject banner should be removed on the grounds that it is "tasteless" or "offensive". The discussion is centralized at Template talk:WikiProject Death#Images. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Please join a requested move talk there...more eyes needed. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
18:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Do people agree that this is photoshopped or do you think it is real?
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with TenOfAllTrades the following web-app which analyzes for image manipulation http://29a.ch/sandbox/2012/imageerrorlevelanalysis/ doesn't show anything that indicates photoshop use. Either someone who is very professional at what they do changed this image as a raw, but the low resolution/quality seems to indicate a consumer camera was used to take this image – why it likely is real. CFCF 💌 📧 21:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Goniewicz, Maciej L.; Hajek, Peter; McRobbie, Hayden (2014). "Nicotine content of electronic cigarettes, its release in vapour and its consistency across batches: regulatory implications" (PDF). Addiction. 109 (3): 500–507. doi: 10.1111/add.12410. ISSN 0965-2140. PMID 24345184.
Is this source unreliable or reliable? See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#2014_study. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you add epidemics to the Category of History of medicine? I made a page on the Cocoliztli epidemic of 1576 and am not sure if I can. JerrySa1 ( talk) 14:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Do we have an article for post-influenza enteropathy under some other name? Should we, or is it basically the same as Enteropathy? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Several new editors have recently added extensive medical use information to Passiflora incarnata. It could probably use the review of medical experts. 72.94.61.22 ( talk) 12:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on now re category naming:
This may apply also to many other categories of interest to WikiProject Medicine. See:
67.0.98.166 ( talk) 16:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
By the way, all I wanted to do here was create a category for articles about people with dissociative disorders other than DID. Sigh. That category already has content, it just hasn't been created. It needs to be created so it can be included in broader categories. 67.0.98.166 ( talk) 16:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's another old draft about a medical topic. Promotional aspects can be removed if this is a notable topic. Should the page be kept and improved, or should it be redirected to Protein Sciences?— Anne Delong ( talk) 22:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
There has been some vandalism here and I am not sure if I can catch it all, I could use some help. Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 23:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
You know...I know everyone is pretty busy but I would like to share with you what I just deleted from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention article:
some content from the CDC page
|
---|
CDC zombie apocalypse outreach campaignOn May 16, 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's blog published an article instructing the public on what to do to prepare for a zombie invasion. While the article did not claim that such a scenario was possible, it did use the popular culture appeal as a means of urging citizens to prepare for all potential hazards, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and floods. [1] According to David Daigle, the Associate Director for Communications, Public Health Preparedness and Response, the idea arose when his team was discussing their upcoming hurricane information campaign and Daigle mused that "we say pretty much the same things every year, in the same way, and I just wonder how many people are paying attention." A social media employee mentioned that the subject of zombies had come up a lot on Twitter when she had been tweeting about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and radiation. The team realized that a campaign like this would most likely reach a different audience from the one that normally pays attention to hurricane preparedness warnings and went to work on the zombie campaign, launching it right before hurricane season began. "The whole idea was, if you're prepared for a zombie apocalypse, you're prepared for pretty much anything," said Daigle. [2] Once the blog article became popular, the CDC announced an open contest for YouTube submissions of the most creative and effective videos covering preparedness for a zombie apocalypse (or apocalypse of any kind), to be judged by the "CDC Zombie Task Force". Submissions were open until October 11, 2011. [3] They also released a zombie themed graphic novella available on their website. [4] Zombie-themed educational materials for teachers are available on the site. [5]
|
As a CDC contractor I do not work on this particular program, but I can verify that Zombie Preparedness is a CDC initiative. "As it turns out what first began as a tongue in cheek campaign to engage new audiences with preparedness messages has proven to be a very effective platform." James Hare (NIOSH) ( talk) 14:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello again medical experts. I plan to accept this draft about a doctor, but I'm not sure what to do about the section titled "Education". It's likely that this material should be incorporated in sentence form into the other sections, but since it's acronyms and abbreviations I wouldn't know how to to this. — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
There is some very strange content in this article. It seems like someone with an ax to grind wrote it and so its POV is very bad. Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 15:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This article was recently brought to my attention. Based upon a simple pubmed search of the name – [24] (1 primary source journal article found) – I'm inclined to delete the Wikipedia article. Does anyone have any input/objection to this before I go ahead and WP:PROD the article? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
We have this ref [25] so it has got some notice. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am seeking opinions on these edits [26] to the lead of Applied behavior analysis. I am discussing the reliability of the sources with another editor, but we have reached an impasse. You can read the discussion here: Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#Poor_sourcing.2C_promotional_links. I realize other WikiProjects are more relevant to the article, but they do not appear to be active. Thanks. CatPath ( talk) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It would be great, if someone knowledgeable could have a look at this recent edit please. As it lacked sources for several statements, included "convenient" links to companies, and added some less-than-neutral language, I have reverted it for now. But to be fair, some of that content may be a valid improvement (I wouldn't know as total ignoramus in that area), but it needs a check for accuracy and neutrality. GermanJoe ( talk) 15:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
At DRAFT:Physical exercise and Mental illnesses we have a class assignment as an article. Anyone know what to do with it? -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 07:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, would anyone possibly have access to the following article ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25474485)? If so, can someone please share it with me? I don't have access and it looks like it would be a good article to use for the acne article since the research section is a bit sparse at this time. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
TylerDurden8823, good that you managed to get the article, but I checked and double-checked my inbox, and there is nothing there (not spam either). I've never known to have problems with Wikipedia e-mails before, but you can find my full address here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/Sign_up#Contacts (don't want to plaster it all over for spam-bots). I'd be happy if you sent me a mail so that next time you're stuck I can try and help you at once. CFCF 💌 📧 06:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The WMF analytics team is presenting a pair of talks on the subject of m:Wikipedia as the front matter to all research this Friday December 4, 2015 (two days from now) at 12:00 noon PST. They will talk about unique identifiers and scholarly citations in Wikipedia. One of the speakers is from CrossRef, and his subject is primarily about how Wikipedia citations bring non-scientists into contact with the scientific literature. The talk will be broadcast on YouTube, so that anyone can watch it. There is more information on Meta. Please join if you're interested. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
good info [29]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe the article Cock and ball torture, and in particular the section Cock and ball torture#Safety, could do with some attention from medical editors, as I think parts of it are definitely matters of medical concern. Given the wide variety of sex-problem-related human experience that is observed in emergency rooms worldwide every day (for example, the extraction of rectal foreign bodies, the emergency removal of metal cock rings, or even more exotic things like damage due to scrotal infusion) I think it's likely that there is relevant medical literature in this area. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the disputed edit. KateWishing ( talk) 13:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Further input welcome Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I request the opinions of WikiProject Medicine participants at Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Another reform proposal - split infobox into "human readable" and "non human readable" and call from Wikidata. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The solution is to not use Template:Navbox, or refer to any of its classes. This is a hard-coded table, but something like this ought to work:
Classification | ICD- 10: M10 • ICD- 9-CM: 274.00 • OMIM: 138900 • DiseasesDB: 29031 |
External resources | MedlinePlus: 000422 • eMedicine: emerg/221 • Patient UK: Gout • MeSH: D006073 |
The details can be tweaked, but this is just a quick demo to show the overall concept. Since it's just two columns (unlike {{ Arthropathies and related conditions}}, which follows it on Gout), it should adapt fairly well to narrow screens. Perhaps if someone has a smartphone, you'll look at it and see whether it's readable. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a minor disagreement at Clear aligners concerning whether an article on a medical product should list no/some/all brands. For example, this edit removed two major brand names from the lead (brands discussed in the article), and added five brand names to the body of the article. A comment here suggests that it is routine to add all brand names under which a drug is sold. Questions: What is the background regarding brand names for drug articles? Any thoughts on how brands should be handled at clear aligners? Johnuniq ( talk) 05:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm about to log off for the day but notice a lot of recent activity here, some of which is based on poor sourcing. Also a lot of material is being introduced about gold nanoparticles into other related articles by a number of new accounts named Nanosomething which is obviously suspicious. Editors less tired than I am might want to take a look ... Alexbrn ( talk) 19:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I created a page recently on the Cocoliztli epidemic of 1576. Is this within the scope of this wikiproject? JerrySa1 ( talk) 18:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see the article and the Talk page. [Note:—
169.230.155.123 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. --
169.230.155.123 (
talk)
16:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Chamomile...just to be clear here ...are we saying it is good to " treat wounds" and "treat headaches and insomnia" and so on ?? We sure that the limited studies of camomile oil say this vs what people claim? -- Moxy ( talk) 21:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Rape#Use of "victim" in place of "person," and expansion to the Definitions section. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the last version of this section has been archived, so I figured I'll just start another one instead of reverting the archive bot. Pretty much all of ENWP's content about immunoglobulin therapy (which includes several RoAs: intramuscular, subcutaneous, and intravenuous) is located at one article - IVIG. I have a draft here and although I know it doesn't address all problems in the current article (there are whole sections I haven't touched yet,) I suspect it would be preferable to the current article. While I intend to work on it further, how would people feel about moving my draft live to immunoglobulin therapy, and redirecting SCIG, IVIG, and IMIG all to the new partially done draft? Kevin Gorman ( talk) 03:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, there's been a bit of debate at psoriasis regarding whether or not a picture of genitalia affected by psoriasis is appropriate (or necessary). Please see diffs here [33] What are your thoughts on this matter? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 21:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Derm condition. Should be a fair number of images. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Intimate partner violence#Michael P Johnson's Typology Theory. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Paracetamol#Alzheimer appears to be a paste of the abstract of the Jones article that it cites. [40] It does seem like a summary of the Jones article should be in paracetamol--could someone from here fix it? I'd probably mess it up if I tried. Thanks. 173.228.123.101 ( talk) 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
relating the ubiquitous paracetamol (Modick et al., 2014) to the worldwide increase of Alzheimer’s disease (Jones, 2014) appears somewhat far-fetched". KateWishing ( talk) 03:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#WP:RfC: Is the current lead sentence best for the article?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
RfC closed-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I recently edited the article on Clitoral Erection by adding a sentence about Clitoral Erectile Dysfunction. Specifically, I stated there is a hypothesis that lack of stimulation during early brain development may cause atrophy of the relative brain areas that control clitoral erectile function, resulting in permanent clitoral erectile dysfunction, although empirical research is necessary for confirmation. I also included a reference to a paper on academia.edu ( https://www.academia.edu/s/559e1d73ea) that describes the hypothesis in more detail and offers some documentation. I made no other claims except that the hypothesis exists and its existence may be verified outside Wikipedia.
My contribution was quickly deleted by an editor who referred me to Wikipedia's Medical Source Guidelines, WP:MED I asked on that persons Talk page why my contribution had been deleted, and the person stated "...the source you added is not up to medical standards." I disputed that criticism and then my contribution was also called "Fringe" and "Editorializing," even though my contribution contained no claims of certainty or even probability, and included no words like "clearly" etc. WP:MED Guidelines do also say: "Neither of these pages are 'laws', but are intended to give, inspire, and organize our contributions. They should never prevent anyone from writing and improving medical articles!"
So why wasn't my contribution modified for improvement instead of completely erased without warning? Newnamenow ( talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
CFCF Thanks for your input. But the content I added didn't make any assertions of fact other than to report that there is a hypothesis, and I provided a reference that anyone can check to verify that the hypothesis exists. If the reference was the real issue, then why wasn't my edit marked or modified (e.g. remove the reference and note "needs citation") rather than deleted completely and as quickly as possible? Wikipedia encourages contributors to "be bold." If someone objects to a particular edit by modifying it, that's editing. But if someone responds to a potentially controversial topic by silencing the whole topic, that's not editing - it's censorship. Newnamenow ( talk) 12:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Note: I am the editor Newnamenow is referring to, if you don't already know; see User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#Clitoral erection article. A WP:Permalink for it is here. SMcCandlish stepped in to discuss the matter with Newnamenow at my talk page, and Doc James addressed Newnamenow at User talk:Newnamenow. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Looie496 This discussion here has the appearance of being a technical question concerning Wikipedia policy, and despite the potentially controversial nature of the hypothesis of clitoral erectile dysfunction and its possible cause - if it becomes widely known the careers of some political opportunists and profiteers in the child sex abuse prevention and rescue business would be in jeopardy, as well as casting doubt on the traditional and cherished practice of anti-sex education in early childhood - I will give critics the benefit of the doubt by assuming their intentions are constructive and impartial and their statements of their motives for deleting my edit are sincere. However, I will note that Drcrazy102 has suggested that I should have initiated a discussion on the Clitoral Erection Talk page (which I had already done), but Flyer22 Reborn and other supporters of the deletion have largely confined their comments to Flyer22 Reborn's Talk page (or attempted to redirect the discussion to that page) rather than defending the deletion on the Clitoral Erection Talk page. Newnamenow ( talk) 10:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
A recent major expansion of Fetal rights was performed [41], and subsequently hidden behind a m-tagged edit. I have not had time to go through the entire text. I am informing this page of it because it seems to have slipped under the radar, and especially the removal of tags marking issues with the page is troubling. I question that these were removed without discussion, and that the current edition really is without the following issues:
{{Unbalanced|date=January 2011}} {{POV-check|date=January 2011}}
CFCF 💌 📧 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal here that WMF develops some tools for dealing with citations of withdrawn academic journal articles. This idea was discussed in this 2012 WT:MED thread. If you think this would be a good use of WMF's time, please let them know. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What do people think of this method of removing synonyms from the lead? Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 14:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard I have proposed that we make some kind of template that will allow us to indicate non-evidence-based therapeutic modalities in a more consistent way. [44]. This follows a concern that the way that we indicate lack of evidence is inconsistent and may ultimately lead to confusion. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 18:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
more opinions--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
10:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Was this edit appropriate? My medical English isn't good enough to tell whether "exhaustion" is a synonym for "fatigue". Thanks -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 09:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Some of the sources added in this edit don't seem to meet MEDRS, but I am posting here to ask if others agree or not. Everymorning (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sexual obsessions#Recently added material. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Note: Since Everymorning beat me to posting, I've merged the section I created with this one. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
There have been a number of edits by an editor relating to gluten currently at wheat and earlier at non-celiac gluten sensitivity, such as disputes over this edit (prevalence of it, what is is, etc.). [46]. Could use some eyes from members here, especially since this topic can get into WP:FRINGE territory sometimes. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments appreciated here Talk:Chronic_obstructive_pulmonary_disease#Stem_cells Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
First off I want to apologize. When I relaunched the MCOTM I really did want to stick with it but some personnel family matters came up right after it began. That said, for those who participated, what are your thoughts? Did you think the MCOTM was beneficial to the Transverse myelitis article as a whole? [Here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Transverse_myelitis&oldid=673477707] is the before and [here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Transverse_myelitis&oldid=688582387] is it today. Overall, I think the article was improved very much, but still needs more work before it can be considered for a good article nomination. My thought is we should discuss what went wrong and what went right to determine if MCOTM is something we should keep doing. Until then, I think we should keep transverse myelitis as the article as the article of the month. So, what are your thoughts, questions, and concerns? Peter.C • talk • contribs 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've added a bit of mechanism info to the Sodium_picosulfate article. I don't typically edit medical articles, so it'd be useful if someone from this Wikiproject could cast their eye over it to check if I've made any errors. Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 22:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
We have an updated offline medical app [48]. Now includes all of pharmacology and anatomy. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
would appreciate any help with this important article/stub, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Annual Reviews is a publisher of review articles in the sciences and social sciences. Its articles cover major topics in each subject area every few years, with other special topics appearing occasionally. For more information see their website. This partnership provides access to their entire Biomedical Life collection. There are up to 100 one-year accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. Please sign up at WP:Annual Reviews!
Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) ( talk) 22:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to participate | on this Rfc your opinion is most welcome! KoshVorlon 13:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
"In a response to rampant poor patient satisfaction scores and an overall demand of patients for more autonomy in their care, a group of internet start-ups have decided to open a network of hospitals where no physicians are required, where patients can receive care they are comfortable with based on their Google searches. [1]
Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Harry Glicken#Hair pulling. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 02:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
...needs some TLC or LCP. Bazj ( talk) 15:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:Cancer deaths by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Big_iron ( talk) 12:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
15:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I am an employee at Manifest, a marketing agency representing Abbott Vascular. Last month I requested edits on Talk pages of several Wikipedia pages: Percutaneous coronary intervention, Coronary stent, Bare-metal stent, Drug-eluting stent, and Bioresorbable stents.
So far, there has been one response, which was on the Drug-eluting stent page, and we are working on requested adjustments for the requests for that page.
Would someone be able to let me know how I may go about having the other requested changes reviewed/made?
Thank you for any input in this regard.
Tom at Manifest ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I have recently used the term anorexia in an article as a description of symptoms. Unfortunately, the wiki link leads directly to anorexia nervosa. One is a symptom and the other is a treatable condition. These two terms need to be distinct. I don't know how to fix this. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ( talk) 12:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Just seen a newly-created article about a 'non-incorporated' UK charity called the Immunity Resource Foundation. The article so far is entirely written by a user who discloses that they were paid to write the article. I'm concerned that the charity seems to be a front to promote HIV/AIDS denialism and that the article doesn't clearly explain this. Can someone look into this? 85.211.96.114 ( talk) 22:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Done
The following names exist for the same condition:
The most common by a factor of 7 is Essential thrombocythemia as seen here Pubmed. I was unable to move the article to the common name, could an administrator do this? CFCF 💌 📧 13:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I've stumbled upon yet another overlooked corner of Wikipedia – the field of gerontology and regenerative medicine. The article on regeneration in humans may include some of the most egregious examples, but the following articles could do with a good looking over:
Thanks, CFCF 💌 📧 20:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, lets make a list:
(See Index of topics related to life extension) Please, anyone feel free to add to this list without signing
User:The Transhumanist probably knows a lot about the articles related to this subject. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I've added the Party and play article to WikiProject Medicine because of the public health risk through unprotected sex with large numbers of sexual partners: see this BMJ editorial. I'd greatly appreciate any help editors on this project could bring to bringing this article up-to-date and improving the number and quality of citations. -- The Anome ( talk) 17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Just trimmed and placed here Talk:Antimicrobial_resistance#Text. Interesting overview here [52] that is much much less sesational. Not going to sell the tabloids but more accurate. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a user reverted the inclusion (as seen here) of the image. After that there was a discussion on the talk page. However, the controversy could not be resolved. Therefore, third opinions would be most welcome. Thanks to all.-- Saidmann ( talk) 15:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Just alerting editors of this project to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunnilingus tongue. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
13:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Some disagreement on what strength of sourcing is necessary to report a connection between these things. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey I was going through the article on one and a half syndrome and the page doesn't seem to specify what the ipsilateral side and the contralateral side suffer from. Can some one make this more clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitrimal ( talk • contribs) 07:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey folks! I've proposed merging 1994 plague epidemic in Surat into 1994 plague in India. It'd be great if some others could take a look and comment. ( Discuss). Thanks! Ajpolino ( talk) 03:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
As 2015 comes to a close I hope you don't mind if I use some electrons to express my appreciation for the participants in this project. I am just an itinerant editor; you all have created and shepherded the most comprehensive and available biomedical resource on Earth. We cannot know how far the ripples will go temporally, but geographically they are global. Thank you all. — soupvector ( talk) 16:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Tetanic contraction currently has no cites of any type at all to support it, which is not ideal for a medical article. Would anyone be interested in taking a look at it? -- The Anome ( talk) 13:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Editors here may remember that the "post-finasteride syndrome" article was deleted as non-notable. It appears that there is an attempt at coatracking the legitimacy of this "syndrome" on this foundation webpage, more eyes would be appreciated. Not sure that this foundation webpage meets WP:N criteria, either. Yobol ( talk) 18:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Will more editors please take a look to give their opinion? AlexBRN's most recent reversion merely says " Rv. to good, this ain't encyclopedic this stuff" which is a very unhelpful comment. The article is being accused of coatracking because many editors here don't want to acknowledge anything about post finasteride syndrome however when you have a foundation that's main purpose is dedicated to researching the syndrome the matter is nearly one in the same. Thanks. Doors22 ( talk) 13:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)