User talk:Biosthmors/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome to Wikipedia

And thank for the note on my talk page.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Biosthmors (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The little is a little all over the place. The evidence post surgery is better but not great. Do you feel the text on prevention is balance at this point? The Cochrane review disagrees with the 2011 review as they use different cut offs to define DVTs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Wikipedia, I have a lot to learn on the subject, so I'm not sure if it is on balance. Biosthmors (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Do they differ in defining symptomatic DVT? (If so how?) They disagree on that. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussing this at Talk:Venous_thrombosis#Factual_errors_reintroduced.3F might be best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ref format

Not sure why you are changing the ref format such as you did here? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venous_thrombosis&action=historysubmit&diff=470671504&oldid=470670462 I always put the date in my ref tags to make it easier for me to keep stuff up to date. Not sure why the " are used... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to match the other Ann Intern Med citation and add the url and doi. But yes, having the month is a plus. Biosthmors (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Prothrombin G20210A

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[1][2], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=95450713 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ExoCarta

I've moved the page as you requested, but you could have actually done it yourself - pages that only have one edit made to them (like redirects) can be moved over by any user. SmartSE (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	A barnstar for Biosthmors for very good medical editing and generally awesome work. Keep it up! JFW | T@lk 12:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And thanks to the both of you for your helpful contributions. Biosthmors (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for leaving a note on my userpage about the article on Alzheimer's disease. I looked at the Radio Four website just before logging in to Wikipedia, and I see that the drug was actually called "Aricept" - many apologies if I got the name wrong! Looking at the Radio Four website, I see the news was based on a study in the "New England Journal of Medicine", so I hope that that is based on a reliable source. The Radio Four website is www.bbc.co.uk/radio4 - you might also find this link useful - www.alzheimer's.org.uk - in evaluating claims on the article on Alzheimer's disease. Again, thank you for the message, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure the article was the one - because the drug it refers to is not Aricept, which is the one I heard about in the report (unless it is just Aricept by another name - having so many medications which get known by both their own name and their brand name can get confusing)! Thank you for your advice, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Many thanks for all the good work you are doing and once again welcome to Wikipedia :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks to you for your many contributions. Biosthmors (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

DVT PR

Glad to help out - sorry it took so long. Once you have redone the whole article, I would be glad to look at it again. Thanks for the PR too! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why the info I put up on 3/26/2012 got change by you.

Hi, Is it possible for you to tell me why you change the information back to the old version which is out of date. I am a patient as well as a medical professional and I did my research for 2 years on this disease.this disease is rare but not as deadly as the old version mentioned due to the current advance in chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Please kindly provide your advise . One of the reason is the patients and caregivers who have this cholangiocarcinoma disease read about this disease on Wiklpedia and find some portion of the description is not neutral ,offensive and may not be entirely correct. thanks for your attention. Regards, PCL1029.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCL1029 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explaination and I need help

Hi, I am sorry I did not use the correct format while I am editing; I just want to express the concern that I have . Medically, I have no problem to edit and provide up-to-date information about this disease; I love to let other patients and caregivers who visit your site (Wikipedia) with accurate and neutral information . the major problem is that I am not that good in the computer side of editing here. As you may discover,I have a hard time to cite my reference. Here are some of the article I want to cite but after 2 hrs of trying I give up. If you can show me how to do one one of them I will appreciate.

1. 1 article

title=Targeted therapy for biliary tract cancer" author= Junji Furuse,et al. Journal=Cancers 2011,3,2243-2254; doi:10.3390/cancers3022243 (ISSN 2072-6694)

1. 2 article

title="cholangiocarcinoma-controversies and challenges" author= Tushar Patel Journal= Nat.Rev. Gastroenterol.Hepatol.8,189-200(2011): dol:10.1038.nrgastro.2011.20 Especially the #2 article ,it provides one of the most up-to-date information on cholangiocarcinoma .

1. 3 article

title=Cisplatin plus gemcitabine verus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. author=Valle J,et al. Journal=N Engl J Med 2010;362:1273 I prefer to write just the summary like the one I did with the above journal and more to support the findings and data. Please show me an easy way for me to help. Regards, PCL1029PCL1029 (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC) PCL1029 (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC) class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by PCL1029 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please help us to add "Chronic Desease in Northern Ontario"

We edited the page to add "Chronic Disease in Northern Ontario" but this was undone. We would like to know what is required to have this change not undone. Also, we believe the heading on this page would be better if it was "Chronic Disease" rather than "Chronic (Medicine)" and would like to know if the page can be moved to one with the "Chronic Disease" heading without being undone. Managementof population (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey, I just wanted to add my assent to the barnstars above. Here at the Wikimedia Foundation I was just looking at a list of editors who recently made their 1,000th edit to Wikipedia articles, your name popped up. :) Congrats, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review

I have taken on the review of the article you put forward for GA, Deep vein thrombosis. You will find the review on the article's talk page where I, and any other editors who want to join in, will make comments and assess how well the GA criteria are met. My first impression is very positive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is more than two weeks since I started this review. It would be helpful if you could respond to the matters I have raised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience while I was out of town, and thanks again for the review. I think all raised concerns have been addressed now. Biosthmors (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See also sections

These are typically not recommended per WP:MEDMOS. And categories are added to the end. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 18:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a big fan of lists of people with diseases as IMO they are typically lists of trivia. As long as they are referenced however I will typically put a link to that article in the society and culture section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 19:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Projects

Per here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#Is_WPMED_the_correct_WikiProject_to_support_this_article.3F I typically leave body parts to WP:Anatomy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 21:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I sort of like to keep the scope fairly narrow and disease related. A while ago someone publish a list of Wikipedia Medicine's most viewed articles and they where (sex, anal sex, clitoris, penis enlargement etc.) I subsequently removed many of these to prevent further press like this which might make it difficult to attract editors. We have WP:Anatomy and WP:Sexuality for these topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Plasmodium biology

Thank you for reverting that press release.

While the information is of some interest the immunology of malaria is extremely complex and poorly understood. This topic probably deserves its own page (or series of pages) but it does not seem that anyone using WP is brave enough to attempt to summarise this complex area. The press release itself is misleading: malaria does actually induce long live memory cells. How important this switching mechanism is to the disease, if it is unique to malaria (something I doubt) and whether it can be confirmed by other workers remain to be seen.DrMicro (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your Revision

I was wondering why you disagree with me on my revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_intercourse&oldid=504343787 I do not want to have an edit war, but a discussion. You cannot revert a edit by solely saying you disagree with it. Led8000 (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Venowave page destruction

I do not appreciate your tone, let alone your actions in removing the Venowave page. Your reasoning of "not valid medical sources" is unjustified. We have done extensive research at a world-wide renowned Vascular specialized hospital at McMaster University. Saying that the source is not valid seems more of an ignorance call on your behalf or a personal attack on me. The device helps people, has valid empirical evidence, reliable sources. After approving it for month without deleting it, why do you feel the urge to suddenly remove it?

You reverted it to the sequential compression pump page. If you read the Venowave page, you would understand that it is very unique and would need its own page to clarify it. Sequential compression pumps work by a different technology, is massive in size, and requires a person to remain bedridden while in use of it. The Venowave is tiny, weights a half a pound, and allows users to remain active giving a huge benefit to anyone in need of a sequential compression pump a BETTER option. It is not the same. I ask you to redo the deleted Venowave page that you already wiped clean of all the promotional style language. The sources are valid and reliable. I don't know what types of sources are better than primary sources from the best institution that studies these issues!

Thank you, ThrombosisAwareness (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome. Please see WP:MEDRS regarding references. I for one support Biosthmors merge of this article. At least until a significant number of secondary sources are found. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

List_of_abbreviations_used_in_medical_prescriptions

"I saw your request for clarification and capitalization. As for capitalization, you could make that change easily. To mark something for clarification, just type {{clarify}} and it will appear like this."

But clarification of what? I did not think what needed clarification was obvious, and who needs ? [Hm. Those won't nest. Suboptimal. ;) ] By commenting on the talk page, I contact the people who have a stake in the article, and who know best how to deal with the issue. (I rather dislike the and "sniping" on Wikipedia. My gnomish goal is to remove those tags whenever I reasonably can; and not add them.) The capitalization: I know--I was on the talk page, I didn't want to confused the issue, and I was time-limited.

Thank you for the comment and welcome! Laguna CA (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

reply

Regarding your message I apologize for not providing a revision summary but I think it is still valid. The sentence I removed is made redundant by the one directly succeeding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.114.73 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

reply

Hi Biosthmors, regarding your message here -- that test edit was me, I was just trying to figure something out about the "related edits" feature. Appreciate the note though! -Pete (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and thank you for the note. Biosthmors (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

DVT peer review

Technically, the DVT peer review has closed. I think that a bot automatically closes it after a certain length of time. I don't know if people are still watching the page. If you want/expect feedback about your comments, you may be better off either posting on the talk page or opening a new peer review. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Yeah I'm posting there mostly for myself. Opening another peer review is a good idea. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Would like your input...

at Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision#Is this page needed anymore? It should be redirected to Circumcision. Self-explanatory! Thanks... Zad68 17:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Online ambassador role

Hi! Basically, the role of an Online Ambassador is to be the experienced Wikipedian that a class can turn to for advice. Sometimes that's just answering questions that students post on their course talk page or your userpage, sometimes it's actively monitoring students' work as they get started, and offering friendly advice and gently nudging them in the right direction when they do things wrong, sometimes it's giving advice to the professor on how to improve the project or what important things the students should know, sometimes it's giving student in-depth feedback on the content they're contributing. And sometimes, it's calling for help from other editors when a whole class is going badly. The first of those things (and the last, on the off chance that things go badly for your class) are the baseline, and the rest of it will vary based what the individual ambassador wants to do and what kinds of help the class is looking for; some like to get very hands-on and proactive, others will just jump in when students explicitly ask them for help.

In terms of how the students have been instructed, how they are being graded, and who the instructors are, that varies from the class to class. Whether they went through this particular online training or had some other kind of training with the professor or Campus Ambassadors, students will probably have gotten some kind of intro to Wikipedia along these lines: Wikipedia:Training/For students. Typically, students are being graded on some combination of participation and the quality of the content they are contributing, in place of a term paper or similar major assignment. You can browse through the "Classroom" module in the Professor and Ambassador trainings to see what the standard assignment would look like, although professors adapt that to varying degrees to suit their own classes.

Here's where you can apply if the Online Ambassador role is something you'd like to do.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision

You seem to understand WP:MEDRS well, would you mind adding to the still-active "POV" conversation you started at Talk:Circumcision? Some editors still think Boyle 2002 should still be used in the article, despite the fact that newer secondary sources have been published on the same subject. Thanks. Zad68 01:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Biosthmors. You have new messages at Bluerasberry's talk page.
Message added 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And again! Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you please consider commenting here? The kind of thing I am doing benefits from at least two sources - one in academic literature and one that is a recommendation of a professional or advisory organization. I have been adding two academic sources along with the consumer-facing recommendation because I have them presented to me and because I have an appreciation and tolerance for more citations than what is typical in most of Wikipedia. I might also be interested in proposing default recommendations for how such projects as mine ought to be done. Thoughts? Do you use cite bundling as shown in the link you gave? Do you see this? I have seen it before but not often. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a different style I guess. I've seen it but I can't remember where. I only have two citations per sentence in DVT. If three sources support one sentence, I think it can becomes a burden for other people to verify things. If I had to use that would be where I think a bundle should be seriously considered, but no, I haven't done it on any article yet, because I don't think I've grouped three citations here yet. Well, there is venous stasis but none of those sources require someone to dive into an academic article. One can click and view. But... that said. I think this is the bigger issue: the problem to me was that the one sentence was unclear and potentially false. It said, "Imaging studies are used to diagnose DVT after other tests, such as confirmation by a D-dimer test, show that the imaging is likely to result in a positive diagnosis." In general, trying to summarize three sources into one sentence runs a high risk of original research unless one is familiar with the subject. So keeping it simple helps maintain text–source integrity. Also, consider posting on the talk page first if there is a highly involved editor (presumably they would know the sources)? Maybe something like, I think this article is missing fact X or only implicitly mentions fact X and I think we should make it explicit. In this scenario I think you just wanted the article to say "scanning after a negative D-dimer in recommended scenarios is unnecessary". The ACCP guidlines effectively say that, it's just an editorial decision to use those words. I'm not sure you added a new fact to the article, is what I'm saying. That's an interesting exchange and I like Doc James' idea. I might use it. Not sure what else I might add that would be useful. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program

Hi Biosthmors!

Congratulations! Your application to join the Wikipedia Education Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted. We are honored to welcome you the Ambassador team.

The information below is provided to ensure that your new role as an Online Ambassador is a successful one. There are tasks listed, as well as reading material. Please make sure to complete the actions presented below, as quickly as possible.

The Wikipedia Education Program is a relatively new program that is continuing to experience change and transition. Our goal is to be better than we were yesterday. For this reason, please remember to check the information and talk pages of the United States Education Program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program often. If you have any questions, please contact myself or one of your fellow Ambassadors.

Please complete the following, as soon as possible

1. Add your username to the official list of Online Ambassadors;
2. Add a profile for yourself here; and
3. Read and review the Wikipedia Ambassadors Principles;
4. Read the United States Education Program's Memorandum of Understanding (provides list of current courses); and
5. Choose courses from the active lists (United States, Canada) and add yourself to the template and course page of the course you wish to assist.
6. Sign up for the Wikipedia Ambassador Program announcements email list.

Support Structure

Online Ambassadors serve as a vital link in the Wikipedia Education Program, assisting new student editors transition into the Wikipedia editing community. They serve in a leadership role alongside the course instructor; local Campus Ambassador(s), who work with the class in person; and the Regional Ambassador, who checks in periodically with the pod to make sure everything is going well. Together, the instructor, Campus Ambassador, Regional Ambassador, and Online Ambassador encompass the course "pod".

The pod is the term we use to refer to the group of individuals that work together to help the students in a particular course successfully contribute to Wikipedia. A prototypical pod might look something like this:

• A professor or course instructor who is fairly new to Wikipedia, leading a class of 20–30 students, who have been assigned to make significant contributions to new or existing articles related to the course subject.
• Two Campus Ambassadors, one of whom is an experienced Wikipedian and one of whom is new to the encyclopedia. The Campus Ambassadors are provided with training to learn the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and how to help students contribute effectively.
• Two Online Ambassadors, one of whom is a moderately experienced Wikipedian, while the other is very experienced. Both have knowledge of community policies and guidelines and are available to provide editing guidance, answer questions, and assistance navigating the community. When needed, Online Ambassadors are also available for one-on-one mentorship.
• One Regional Ambassador, a moderately experienced Wikipedian who coordinates assistance and support for universities and courses based on a large geographical region.

Role and Responsibilities

The list of the responsibilities of the Online Ambassador are presented in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In essence, the role of the Online Ambassador includes:

1. Helping students in your class(es) when they ask for it and answer their questions;
2. Serve as a liaison between the professor/student and the community;
3. In general, keep an eye out for the students and professors and help them navigate the community;
4. Helping students get feedback on their work (whether from you or other editors with an interest in or knowledge of the subject area)
5. Be a good example for students, modeling good faith communication and editing practices; and
6. Communicating regularly with the other members of your pod regarding the progress of the student, along with any issues that come up.

Online Ambassadors can also assist students that are outside of their pod. Generally, Online Ambassadors represent the Ambassador Program and provide assistance for students whenever encountered. While feedback on the style and formatting of student articles is essential, assistance may also be needed to review the articles substance and content. When needed, the Online Ambassador may request the assistance of WikiProjects that focus on technical issues presented in student articles.

Communication Channels

There are five main places for news, updates, and discussion about Wikipedia Ambassadors and the Wikipedia Education Program:

1. Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors
2. Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program
3. Wikipedia:Education noticeboard
4. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program announcements list. This is a low-traffic email list that is used for significant announcements that are relevant to the whole program. Please sign up as soon as you get a chance.
5. Internet Relay Chat (IRC). If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup. The latter is the main help channel for the program, where students and instructors seek live help.

Future communication tools are being developed. Newsletters about the program or messages for Online Ambassadors may occasionally be delivered to your talk page. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Again, welcome to the Ambassador team! We look forward to working with you! The Interior (Talk) 16:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note: We have several medicine and health-based courses this year, they could use your expertise. Let me know if you have any trouble finding appropriate courses. The Interior (Talk) 16:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Neuroscience class

Still up for supporting the Introductory Neuroscience class? If so, I'll add you as the Online Ambassador for that class, and please introduce yourself to the instructor when you get chance. Thanks for volunteering as an ambassador!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep! Sure sign me up if you'd like to or I'll do it a little later today. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

less technical information at beginning of each section?

Hi Biosthmors,

In response to this explanation of an edit I made:

"moving a more technical paragraph to later in this section, the general idea of narrative arc starting with 10th grade level (age 16) and proceeding to grad school level)"

This is larger my own idea. The idea that we start less technical and become more technical, I hope we would find broad agreement. Whether it's specifically moving from the tenth grade level to the grad school level, that's maybe a little more dicey. I also like the idea of narrative arc, that the material need not just lay flat.

And perhaps most important, we should not talk down to our readers for that is poison. When summarize a source, I should assume my reader is just as intelligent as I am. I still like the idea of from less technical to more, and I think I can do both. And sometimes a medium amount of technical information is all the intelligent layperson needs or wants. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

My observations/concerns after two years of retirement

Hi. Thank you for sending me this message. I haven't had problems with any users (or staff) since I've been back, however it seems that participation levels are down quite a bit since I retired (under protest) in July of 2010 I can put out RFC's that get no responses, or ask for input and get none. I've been following certain threads and trends that many experienced editors and admins have left the project under protest as well. If I were volunteering for the United Way (or some other big non-profit), mistreatment of volunteers from other volunteers (or staff), would not be tolerated. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Why warfarin is not a vitamin K antagonist

Hi,

I changed the Wikipedia warfarin page to correct the erroneous assertion that warfarin is a vitamin K antagonist. Biosthmors reverted these changes it seems because he/she thought it was opinion.

It is not an opinion but is a fact if you try to understand the mechanism of action properly. Warfarin is an inhibitor of enzymes involved in the recycling of vitamin K from its inactive epoxide form to its active reduced form. This reduces the formation of active vitamin K which leads to its anticoagulant effect. The true mechanism of action is already explained in the warfarin page and it should be clear from that description that warfarin does not antgonize vitamin K. Indeed if vitamin K is given to someone who has been overcoagulated the effects of warfarin are antagonised. Warfarin does not in any way inhibit the action of vitamin K as a co-factor for formation of coagulation factors.

I am well aware that the clinical literature describes warfarin as a vitamin K antagonist. But this is because the authors of this literature are pharmacologically ignorant and do not understand what the term antagonist means.

Nick Holford, Professor Clinical Pharmacology Dept Pharmacology & Clinical Pharmacology, Bldg 503 Room 302A University of Auckland,85 Park Rd,Private Bag 92019,Auckland,New Zealand tel:+64(9)923-6730 fax:+64(9)373-7090 mobile:+64(21)46 23 53 email: n.holford@auckland.ac.nz http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/sms/pharmacology/holford

NHGH (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The above comment was copied and pasted by me to Talk:Warfarin. Biosthmors (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

Not sure this is the right place to respond but I think the notion is to correctly designate origin. I'll try a better place of putting the article and add those that refer to it. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'll look at the documents, try to find a good review article, take two aspirin and call you in the morning. Thanks for the reference to the WP docsScholarlyarticles (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Interstitial Cystitis Follow Up

Hey Biosthmors, I've started making the suggested improvements to the page and I would like to take you up on your offer to assist me in locating reliable secondary sources to replace the old primary source literature present in the article. I have already replaced one instance of the "Harvard" study with the 2009 review you suggested since I agree with you that old literature tends to not be the best material for an article like this, especially when this is becoming a heavily researched topic that is poorly understood and new discoveries are constantly being made. Thanks in advance! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! No problem, if you happen to have access to ISI Web of Knowledge/Web of Science, that's what I use. If you have a primary source you think you might be able to get rid of, just give me the info on it (a PMID or doi works great) and I'll see what has cited it. I see there are several reviews that have been published in 2012, and here are three: doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2011.03.011, doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10860.x and doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.12.014. Good luck! Biosthmors (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't say I've used that before. I used some of the new reviews in the article. Please let me know at your earliest convenience how it looks like its progressing and if there are other areas in the article that need work or other papers that need to be removed/replaced with an updated review source. I reworded the areas you suggested already. My talk page or here is fine to let me know. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making improvements. I'll plan on commenting at the good article nomination sometime soon. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do keep it open though, if it needs further improvements after the ones I've made, I will address those to so let's not let that be the final word unless it is already up to GA status, if it is, great, if not, I'll continue to work on it and we can let the review sit for a bit. I'll await your reply on how the article looks. Your feedback has been great so far. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. As long as things are progressing I don't mind keeping it open. But I don't want to keep it open as long as Talk:Malaria/GA2 has been open. We've been working there since May! This one should be weeks not months. There's much more to say about malaria, and it's a unique review in some regards. I'm glad to help content improve here so we'll try to keep things moving, though I do plan on being out of town for the weekend and away from the computer, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Have a nice weekend and I look forward to hearing back from you when you return. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Biosthmors, I've done a lot with the IC article. Can you take another look and see how it's coming along? It's not quite finished yet but I've swapped out a lot of primary sources for secondary sources, reviews, etc and also removed unnecessary or informally written content. Additionally, there were a few links that did not work at all or were linked to probable unreliable medical sources and these have been addressed. Please let me know how the article is progressing when you get a chance. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

From a glance, it seems you're doing exactly what should be done. =) Biosthmors (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, can we put this improving on hold? If it's too long (say about two weeks), I will completely understand and we can say it fails the GA review/nomination for now and I will return to it, fix it up more and then renominate it and contact you so you can review the newer copy. Hope that sounds agreeable. I would like to keep working on it now but I'm going to be rather busy these next two weeks. I'll be able to fix it up more after that point. Be sure to let me know either way. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. We'll just let it be on hold for now and be in touch shortly. Biosthmors (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wondering if improve this would fall under your interest

Recombinant_factor_VIIa Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Review DOI1

Hey Biosthmors, so I did just a general Pubmed central search for reviews and this first one that popped up looked good. I think that it could help a lot for the primary sources regarding medications used, BCG vaccine that is mentioned, Hunner's ulcers, etc. and it looks like it might cite some of the papers in the article. Is that Web of Science tool going to allow you to see if the references are used in that review article? I'll be back with more review candidates. Here's the doi: doi:10.1177/1756287211398255 TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahh... That sounds like it will take too much time for me. =) The doi/study you give is not indexed in PubMed as a review. And I don't think it is indexed in WOS. Consider incorporating per WP:MEDREV. Biosthmors (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. I just searched for it again on pubmed central and put the limits of research papers/reviews on my search and this came up so it should be a review. It also says in the full text it's a review. Maybe this helps? PMID 3126088 which I cannot seem to get to link out (I thought I followed your instructions properly since I copy/pasted what you did on my talk page) but here's the link just you so see what paper I'm talking about and that it's on Pubmed. If it's not listed as a review , that's unusual and I don't know why: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126088/ TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

PMC numbers are different from PMID numbers. If the article says it is a review then that's fine by me, despite PMID not indexing it as one. Maybe PMC and PMID indexing does not always match. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Review DOI2

Here's another one that might work for the section on antiproliferative factors and related topics: doi:10.5213/inj.2011.15.4.184 TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not in WOS... Consider citing doi:10.1002/nau.22202, which is labeled as a review and cites a similiarly titled study from 2008. Biosthmors (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access so I am unable to see the references for this paper so I don't know which part of the article this is good for and which primary papers it cited that I can replace with this review. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:RX if you want to access the source? Biosthmors (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Review DOI3

Last one for today (I promise). Good for discussion of co-morbidities perhaps: doi:10.3389/fnins.2012.00114 TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a new article so a review is doubtful. Consider incorporating per WP:MEDREV. Here's a 2009 review that might be useful: doi:10.2215/CJN.02000309. One can also use recent articles as secondary sources on other studies, but I do not give them as much weight as a review article or clinical practice guidline (ideal secondary sources). Biosthmors (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the WP:MEDREV page but I'm not understanding what you want me to do. Are you saying I should add these reviews that you couldn't find on WOS to some database so future WOD searches find them? Or are you saying there is a basis to add these reviews to the Interstitial Cystitis article despite that? Or something else? I'm new when it comes to adding reviews to articles as you can see.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This one might also work: PMID 17222607 TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I also added the Interstitial Cystitis: An Enigma Unsolved Review that you suggested as best I could in the paper and removed primary papers that had the same information so it should be somewhat better now. Also replaced a few sources that other users were concerned may be unreliable medical sources so that should no longer be an issue.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello

This is a respond to your message. As you can see I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, and editing here is not particularly user-friendly :) To answer your questions; I am not particularly interested in soursop, but I admire Wikipedia. I was searching about Graviola (including in Wikipedia) and was disappointed to find that the article about Graviola here does not have objective and complete information. The sources that I cited are taken from this website http://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/herb/graviola If you checked the researches that I’ve cited you would know that what I’ve said is, at best, an understatement of what has been found in the studies (no OR). I was being concise in my statement and used the words “may”, “suggest”, and “some” to make sure that the statement fits and does not transcendent the facts. If reviewing the papers that I’ve cited is too much, you can simply check their title (which straight forwards supports my statement) or check the website that I have included in this message. If you can, upon reading the cited papers, adjust the statement then that would be great.

Thanks for your message, I am very glad and honored to be an editor in what is, in my opinion, one of the best things that ever happened in the information revolution.

October 27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emahms (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Flaviviridae

Misidentification can happen when user removes a large portion of content without explaining the reason in the summary. That was the case here. Widr (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's why you need to leave an explanation for removals or, better yet, seek consensus on talk pages before removing it. Especially if you remove that much of the content. You can't expect editors patrolling recent changes to be experts in every possible area, and blankings like that usually register as vandalism. Thanks for the feedback, though, and happy editing to you too. Widr (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Many thanks. You're very gracious. I've been following your contributions. I think the opportunities of getting students excited about writing, and developing a new perspective, are limited only by our time and involvement. I look forward to doing whatever I can. Mdscottis (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

How to Organize the Subtopics of my Article

Hello, I am one of the students in the Intro to Neuroscience class, and I'd like your advice. My topic for my wikipedia article is the 'Neural basis of personality'

I am unsure of how to organize subsections since it's an ill-defined topic. But I do have one idea. There are many different theories of personality, and I'd like to connect that to the biology of the brain. So, the article could be organized so that each theory of personality would have a section that explains the basic concepts of the theory, and the neural/biological mechanisms that may support it.

Do you think this is a good approach?

Thanks, Mtakeda6 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I'm not familiar with the literature, however. A section describing the consensus of experts in the field and possibly the trends of that consensus (if sources cover this) would be a nice addition. Eventually, as this is an "ill-defined topic", this content might be best off at personality itself, by adding several paragraphs there. A point of curiosity: is there any overlap with the theories you have identified and personality psychology? Best. Biosthmors (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And I just found neural basis of self. I wonder how this should all fit together... Biosthmors (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Okay Cool thank you. I just got this message my internet seems to be running a little slow. But thank you for letting me know! I also have a question, do you happen to know where the outline guidelines on the Wiki Style guide that Professor Potter was talking about? Kthomas39 20:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Unfortunately I don't. You'd have to ask him. Could you let me know if you find out? I'd be interested in taking a look. Also, if you type four of these in a row: ~ it will generate a time-stamped signature. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Plantar Fasciitis Cryosurgery edit

Hello thank you for your message. I'm new to wikepedia, and I did not save a copy of my upload so I cannot check but I seem to recall I mentioned two studies. What would you suggest would be an acceptable way of citing cryosurgery as a treatment option for plantar fasciitis? I'm happy to take all your comments on board and I welcome any suggestions before I rewrite it including, editing the original post, referencing and citation? Kind Regards Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnclinic (talk • contribs) 20:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah. No worries, it is not lost. Just click on a particular revision in the history, see here. One can get to the history of any article by clicking the history tab at the top of any page. If you don't mind answering, I'm curious: Are you just interested in including this cryosurgery information, or might you be interested in contributing to Wikipedia in other areas too? We cite WP:MEDRS. Have you skimmed that page to take in the main points? Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So, it depends what reliable medical sources say. I don't know the literature already. Biosthmors (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi Biosthmors! Thanks for your kind words. That is a magnificent picture you got there at the top of your user page.

I am upset because I feel that the page on breast cancer awareness is not just a bad article, but is a bad and harmful thing to be in this world. I think that the world is better off with no article, or better yet, with a good article! So for the past two weeks (since I first came across the page), I've been working each day to help the issue. I've tried to work with the other user over there and have written probably around 100,000 words in the article's defense, and have provided a lot of my own work and my own sources. What bugs me is that all of that effort is completely futile.

She knows her way around wikipedia better than I, and very cleverly turns the situation into something it isn't. Another user came along yesterday and got involved. He started to see the issues with the article and he agreed with me. The minute she saw that, two of her friends swooped in and changed the picture in her favor. It doesn't matter what I do to the article - they'll change it back, no matter what it is. I've even changed a small piece of punctuation and that was reverted. They don't even try to reach a consensus with me. They don't care at all about improving wikipedia. All they care about is keeping that user's views on the page. I'm guessing she probably wrote it herself. I suggested she find an WP:ALTOUT, but got no response.

And now one of them even mentioned the possibility of banning me. There is evidently little I can do, and I have to say I am absolutely stunned to see cronyism and dictatorship (WP:OOA) on a site that I believe has such a perfect and pure fundamental philosophy. I was going to request formal mediation until that one user showed up. I thought we were really going to get somewhere, but then it was flooded by the secret police. I think what I will likely do is wait a few days until it dies down, and then request formal mediation. Do you have any other suggestions? Charles35 (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree it is a great picture, of course, since I picked it out of a bunch to place here! Well, working on something controversial can be incredibly frustrating on Wikipedia. I recommend that you get more experience with something uncontroversial. Maybe you'd like to improve something related to breast cancer that is not controversial? I could help you identify an article and good sources. I guess I have more good faith than you that other people here really do want the best quality articles, although I know it may feel like they don't right now. Try to convince yourself that they do (WP:AGF). If you're not getting consensus on the talk page, escalating further is just going to frustrate you more, in my opinion. So I suggest you withdraw and recalibrate, learn more, etc., then you'll be better equipped to have a larger impact, because you'll build trust. Biosthmors (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Say, hypothetically, somebody has a legitimate source, and uses it to post content on wikipedia. The content posted reflects the content in the source, but at the same time, the content goes further and brings the view to a more extreme place. It still reflects the same content, but it is now questionable and inappropriate. Or, say that the content appropriately reflects the intensity of the source. But it is still questionable and inappropriate. Because the source is technically a reliable one, is there any way to show that it otherwise should not be used on wikipedia? Or is the simple fact that the author has a PhD enough to warrant that it is automatically reliable?

In both of those cases, do you think that you must have a source of your own in order to edit it down? Without showing the source unreliable, or having a contrasting source of your own, can you simply edit the material, with justifiable reason (such as NPOV), so that it is more appropriate for wikipedia? Charles35 (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by an "extreme". Is it "extreme" because it is an opinion? Is it "extreme" because it is a fact that unreliable sources dismiss? Content should reflect something like the consensus or average or in between of what reliable sources are doing, not just one, if I understand you correctly. In this case, I don't know why it would be "questionable and inappropriate". That one source might simply reflect all reliable sources on the matter. If a source is reliable, I don't know why it would have to be excluded, though I could imagine a consensus could easily develop that another (better) source that says the same thing should be cited instead. A PhD definitely doesn't make anything reliable. See WP:SPS. I don't think I can answer your questions that follow "In both of these cases..." But maybe I've already addressed them somehow. Did you find my response adequate? Best. Biosthmors (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't read the above paragraph yet but I will respond to it soon. I saw your revert on my template edit just now, after I added an NPOV template. I will get on that. Not sure if I know how to do what you said, but I'll try to figure it out. If I don't, I'll report back! Thanks! Charles35 (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I figured there would already be a talk page section stating something like this: "the article supports fringe views because it says X while reliable sources say Y". But I didn't see anything. Thanks for the note. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I will add one for that. I didn't revert the NPOV one that I added. I made a section on the talk page for it though. Do you suggest I revert it and add it again with an edit summary? I thought that would definitely be a good idea for the fringe theory (since that will be a little more controversial), but that it would probably not be necessary for NPOV since it's been well established on the talk page. Charles35 (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I email you something through the "E-mail this user" function? I'd like to ask you some things that aren't public. I appreciate your help a lot. Charles35 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The article seemed to take an odd tone to me, so I don't have a problem with the NPOV tag. Wikipedia:NPOV dispute answers your question. It says "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." So explain why it is fringe on the talk page first. But really, who cares if there are two tags? Consider if the unbalanced one covers it adequately enough already. Pick your battles? Trying to get another potentially related tag on the article might be a waste of time at this point, in my opinion. Yes you may. Biosthmors (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If my tone is harsh, sorry. I guess that's just how I write? :) - What exactly do you mean by the stick? Do you mean the debate has died? I don't think there ever was a debate. It was me trying to improve wikipedia, and others trying to stop me. They weren't working with me to improve the article, so there was never an actual debate over the material. Know what I'm saying? My point is that I don't think that's a reason to stop trying here because they were just trying to stop me from making changes. I'm not going to try to assume whether that's because they were in bad faith or because they thought my changes were dumb. That's kind of irrelevant anyway. All that matters is that they were never really debating. Am I making sense here? Charles35 (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just your style! But I'm just trying to help you adapt and fit in here. The stick was a metaphor because it doesn't look like it would be pleasant to be a participant in the talk page discussions at breast cancer awareness. Here's what you have to do on Wikipedia: if your idea of an improvement isn't agreed upon by others, then find something else to improve. There is an approximately infinite supply of things to improve here! If there really isn't a "debate over the material" then there's nothing to discuss that is of consequence, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Interstitial cystitis update

Hi Biosthmors, I went back and did more editing of the IC article and I think it is done in terms of being able to replace primary sources with reviews. The entire article is practically review papers now. There are a few remaining but those few were ones I could not find review papers for yet. I think partially that is because some of those studies are fairly new and it is a time factor and with others it is just that those studies have not yet been attempted (or may never be, who knows). So, I think we can now remove the tag that the IC article relies too heavily on primary sources as it no longer does and reexamine how the article is progressing and what else needs work to get it to GA status. I'm thinking it's close but I'll await your feedback. My talk page or the IC GA nom page or both are fine to get a hold of me. Hope all is well and thanks for putting it on hold for a little while. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we can say that the article is not quite ready for GA status yet and open it to peer review. I certainly understand if you're busy. You've been a terrific help to me and I very much appreciate everything you've done. So, after you say that the article is not ready for GA yet, who opens it up for peer review? I do, right? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers

you wrote on my page: As you can see here, I just updated DVT with a most-read NEJM article that was published 6 days ago. There is a way, in my opinion. See WP:MEDREV also. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, but I really just can't deal with the nazis who now own the OA page. Reading some of the exchanges you've had, I can see I'm not the only one who's felt this. And this is not the first time I've had some thoughtless jerk hit the delete button on a page I'd started or a section I contributed... just because he could. It is really frustrating to put in considerable time and effort producing decent, reasonably sourced prose only to have it chucked out by some small-minded control freak who doesn't give anything like thoughtful, sensitive consideration to what he's doing. You'll be lucky if Doc James doesn't go after your au courant additions to the DVT page. Whhoooo, scary! Primary sources [even if they are highly cited and NEJM] rather than secondary reviews!! EEeeek! Horrors! Quick--Get the WikiRules!! But seriously, do keep up the good fight to make Wikipedia medical articles timely and thereby credible and useful. I don't have the heart for it.Celia Kozlowski (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I understand your frustration, but invoking the nazis is going too far, no?! Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source. We don't have the time or energy to edit every article every time a new study comes out. So we look for ways to rely on secondary sources instead. I think if you spent a lot of time on the OA article to "update" it, then keep it "updated" as contradictory and complicating details emerged from the science, then you'd learn this the hard way. I'm confident there are more ways to incorporate the material you want to see in the article, one just needs a bit of creative patience, perhaps? =) Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Doc James relented and let a Research section onto the page to include the strontium ranelate finding. So maybe nazi is harsh. Following your suggestion, I've proposed the skeleton of an OA Research page (on the OA Talk page). I've included broad subject areas that I KNOW have been presented in reviews, although I realize even these have to be kept up to date.* The wonderful thing about wikipedia is supposed to be that there are thousands of people looking at it, and dozens or more ready to edit pages as they come across bits that need to be added.( Of course that assumes considerate interactions and editing that don't alienate potential editors by dismissing changes unthinkingly. For example, I would draft the OA Research page, but I've been so casually burned so often that I won't now. Let someone else have the privilege... ) *speaking of which, there is a new review of cartilage bioengineering coming out in Science this Friday which should be used to shape that section of the OA research page, should you or someone else take up my suggestion. cheers, Celia Kozlowski (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has that sort of public image, but I think once you start looking closely at a broad sample of the 4 million plus articles, you'll see that it is a rare event for someone to drastically improve any given subject. My hopes are on you! ;-) Editing isn't always pleasant, but take comfort in the fact others will learn from your contributions? My wiki plate is a bit full at the moment (see here). Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

DVT at PR towards FA!

Sorry Bios, I've rather slunk away from the computer to nurse some acute LBP. Moving back towards the screen again, but somewhat cautiously ... Anyway, please do let me know if there's anything in particular you wish me to do to help you in your very worthwhile task without getting in the way. I think your idea of involving Malleus is excellent. He makes splendid contributions and knows far, far more than I probably ever will about MOS technicalities and the FA process. Best wishes, —MistyMorn (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you feel better soon, and thanks for the note. I can't take credit for the idea. RexxS mentioned I might contact him or Malleus if I thought I needed some help meeting the FA criteria. I guess the biggest thing I need to do is add about three more paragraphs of prose to the article for comprehensiveness. If you wanted to do that I wouldn't stop you! But I have the sources right in front of me. I'm just trying to juggle some other things here so meeting the comprehensiveness criterion isn't my first Wiki-priority at the moment. Biosthmors (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I admire your commitment. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And thank you very much for helping out here. You do a lot of good. For me, there's some self-interest going on, 'cause maybe I'll get published. I figure the idea of collaborating with journals is good because it could benefit Wikipedia by attracting/encouraging good edits. Again, I hope you feel better soon. Biosthmors (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)