Talk:Neuromuscular disease/Archive 1

Disease has other sufferers

Resolved

– Shanata (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph seems to be misplaced, maybe it should be deleted?

... Only two welsh twins have contracted the desease and they are the only ones in the world to have it. Doctors from England to America are stumped at this desease and since it is completley unique even they don't know what will happen next. ...this is invalid information because my uncle in canada has this desease and has not been cuered yet!(at leaset i think its this type of Neuromuscular disease?)

Fglock 20:45, 22 May 2007 & 5:42pm november 5 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi Ozzie10aaaa, re. your recent edits, I am happy you took time to improve this page. A few remarks, hope you will take them as constructive ones as this is their intention:

WP:NOTMANUAL. We should refrain from telling people what is imperative to do. And no, it is not an imperative to get family history in all NM diseases. If a genetic cause is established early via genetic testing, there is no point discussing family history.
It is not that "exercise might be a way of managing NM diseases." Physiotherapy (not exercise!) either is or is not recommended depending on the disorder. We cannot responsibly tell readers, possibly patients, that exercise is a good thing to do.
WP:NOTESSAY: "because we've learned that...". This section needs rewriting.

Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 22:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

kashmiri ^TALK point taken , I will look over right now, let me know of anything else, your opinion is most welcomed[1][2][3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiac involvement

This is mostly about the congenital myopathies and actually doesn't talk about acquired conditions doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000526 JFW | T@lk 09:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

Hi Ozzie10aaaa, I am sure I justified each of my edits well. Still you decided to revert them summarily. I don't have much time today, but let me go through them again as you requested on my Talk:

This edit to comply with WP:VERY
This edit because neuromuscular diseases affect BOTH neurons AND muscles. There is no option of "or".
This edit, because treatments are developed for each disease individually. Even if some NM diseases can have a similar cause (e.g., autoimmune issues), treatments will be different.
This edit per WP:SEEALSO
This edit because it is unsourced and misleading. Gene therapies can "offer promise" in pretty much all genetic disorders. But there is a difference between a promise and a treatment, and it so happens that there is no approved gene therapy treatment for DMD. Also I see no reason to single out DMD. The reader should refer to articles on individual diseases.
I removed the entire Management section as misleading, unsourced and unnecessary. "Neuromuscular diseases" is an umbrella term for a vast range of disorders, each of them having own, unique management paradigm. Attempts to condense this to one paragraph is nonsense. Exercise usually is just one component of patient management in some (but not all) of those diseases. There may be other components: orthopaedic management, respiratory management, nutritional management, cardiac management (in diseases with heart involvement), psychosocial management, and so on. To say it clearly: each disease has a unique management paradigm.
The image you added (a sketch of a forearm muscle) is not representative of neuromuscular diseases and has zero informational value to the reader. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, there is no option I am going to continue editing Wikipedia if I am required to justify my every single edit not only in edit summaries but also on Talk. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in terms of the management section it is very 'general' as to its content and per MEDMOS for the sections in an article It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles
in terms of image[4] should you feel this one is not ok, lets then replace it not leave the infobox empty?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style is a recommendation, however it does not mean you need to push in all the sections it proposes. Your attempts to come up with "Management" of all NM diseaes under one heading is absurd and also unnecessary, as I mentioned above and in edit summary. No guidance will replace WP:COMMONSENSE.

Given that above I offered a justfiction of all my edits, please justify your reverts. Otherwise I will go ahead with restoring my changes. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok in terms of the image in the infobox, should you not like it, lets change it to something else, the infobox should have an image as it will likely get readers attention more, as for 'management' what do you propose to do 'prognosis' instead?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT. An encyclopaedia's role is to provide reliable, relevant information; NOT to "attract readers' attention". If there is no good image, there should be no image. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ill go along with the rest of your edits,[5] however the infobox should have an image WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT as I interpret it does not apply--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]