Welcome to Glynwiki's Talk Page

Leeds Symphony Orchestra

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Leeds Symphony Orchestra, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.leedsso.hostinguk.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 11:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Symphony Orchestra - thanks

Thanks for fixing the copyright issues on the orchestra's article. I've copyedited the article some more, removing things such as practice times which aren't particularly encyclopedic and a couple of double-ups of information as well as adding formatting and wikilinks to other articles.

I've added a welcome box above which contains various links to help you with editing, and if you have any further questions, feel free to ask on my talk page.

Happy editing, Blair - Speak to me 11:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as the edit you made to Cholesterol Depletion. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 03:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, but it appears the signature made it back in to the page again. I have removed it. Also, usually not good to link section headings. I also wondering if you have considered making this article into a subsection of the main Cholesterol article, because I am concerned it may be too narrow-scope or detailed to be it's own article? Your thoughts? 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 03:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Mevalonate inhibition

I have nominated Mevalonate inhibition, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mevalonate inhibition. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk 06:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Cholesterol Depletion

I have nominated Cholesterol Depletion, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cholesterol Depletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk 06:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

Hi - can you take a look at your recent edit here. Your sigs are spread over multiple lines and it appears you are voting KEEP multiple times. Thanks. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 05:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

I saw your concern about certain drugs. That's right, Big Pharma intentionally creates drugs that can not be dropped by a patient without harming his health (one good example is lipitor). They create drug addicts, but only in a legal way. What a shame.Biophys (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN

Both of the article up for deletion imply clinical outcomes based on invitro work. That is WP:SYN--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a need for you to come to my talkpage to justify your work on Wikipedia. I don't think I will be changing my mind about mevalonate inhibition and cholesterol Depletion, and generally endless haggling with other editors is perceived as annoying.

Statins may well interfere with membrane cholesterol and lipid rafts and all other things more. But in vitro work cannot be extended to in vivo situations, and a petri dish with dying mouse cells does not displace a large body of epidemiological and clinical research showing unequivocal benefits from statins. You will concede that the statins have pleiotropic effects. This is borne out again by the very large Progressive Studies Collaboration papers of last year that showed that cholesterol wasn't much of a risk factor for stroke but that statins ameliorated the risk anyway. This is a fascinating field of research with many unclarified issues that has the attention of many bona fide scientists (not just those in the pay of Big Pharma). I find the attitudes displayed by your friend Biophys (above) all the more worrying because they presume malice on behalf of these scientists. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that statins have been demonstrated to increase NO and have anti-inflammatory / anti-coagulent capability. All can be useful in therapies. Pleiotropic is a word suggesting a need for research and insight. Until the advent of squalene epoxidase inhibitors the ability to study cholesterol depletion without affecting CoQ10 and the terpenoids was limited. The bio-scientists exploring cholesterol actions in lipid rafts now have a variety of methods which are begining to explain the impact of cholesterol on cell membrane functions and the clinical consequences of depletion. Already the word pleiotropic is being used to defend use of statins far beyond what has been justified in clinical trials. I have a list of circumstances when I will be grateful for use of a statin but it is very limited. I took 40 mg of simvastatin for 6 days (preventative cholesterol reduction)- attempted to record the effects but was rapidly deteriorating and had to stop because of eczema, mental effects and other symptoms. That triggered my interest in the subject. The concept of mevalonate pathway inhibition was able to explain all symptoms experienced. The adverse effects are now well documented by the team at UCLA (Golomb et al) and they have have explored the CoQ10/Mitochondrial explanation. I decide to look at the literature and review cholesterol itself and will say more on this shortly. I have looked at JFW publications and accept his expertise and the need for balance and NPOV WP:AGF, but from my perspective the activity in this much loved encyclopedia on these topicss is not balanced and does not yet have that NPOV. I have tried in a small way to address that and respect the advice given. I will eventually simplify, merge and redirect my effort to assist the need for a NPOV on these issues. You will have experienced the the move from attacking Cholesterol (Ancel Keys), to bad cholesterol LDL, LDLa and now pleiotropic defence for statin. This medication is simply defined by its action HMG Co-reductase inhibition aka Mevalonate Blockade. I studied the mevalonate pathway in the late 1960s and extracted CoQ10 (ubiquinone) from heart muscle in undergraduate biochemistry. I have noticed it not as detailed in the biochemistry books of recent decades and if cholesterol is mentioned there is a subtext of apology for acknowledging its existence. Lipid raft hypothesis was a paradigm shift and has subsequently has exonerated cholesterol and its now time for the pharmaceutical industry put the scientific matters right. Thanks for being interested and opposing dialogues can bring balance. Facts are facts regardless of how we act or vote. We will all admit being in the wrong on the basis of irrefutable science. Glynwiki (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC) The clinical trials you refer have vast limitations . Trials which limit the outcomes to cardiovascular, limit cohorts, limit time and use surrogate end points (e.g. blood plasma cholesterol reduction) have created this problem. How about a simplification and redirection to the original biochemical oriented page. Separate the 'lab science' with 'clinical issues'. We have to be alert when science trends (lipid rafts) require us to be cautious about narrow focus and use of statistics in clinical trials. On the one hand we have these statins able to reduce the occurrence of cardio-vascular mortality and on the other we have a building legacy of cholesterol depletion problems in membranes (lipid rafts) and a whole world adverse long term problems. This is an important balance to maintain - I do not want casual readers to get the wrong impression on either of these important aspects.Glynwiki (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perspective: Original encounter with mevalonate pathway chemistry was in 1968 as an undergraduate. Reacquainted with research in this area after my first encounter with statins as a patient (routine cholesterol test and primary prevention) - specifically published research on membrane cholesterol (lipid raft functions) and the correlations with clinical adverse reactions. Looking at "total mortality" when available, "numbers needed to treat" and the excessive claims made by statin trials, I believe we are seeing a crisis of confidence developing in the broader and lengthier uses to which statins are being put. Patient non-compliance and "drop out" is a fascinating omission in most analyses. They may have proved useful in acute treatments but they are being over sold by the producers. I have noticed a more cautious approach by some manufacturers and who seem to be downplaying the importance of long term statins.
The fundamental problem facing the industry is that, despite the unresolved debate AHA versus Dr Ancel Keys in the 1960s, Cholesterol was never guilty of anything other than benefits in the development of eukaryotic cells - therefore all the small statistical benefits in trials are now described as pleiotropic even in cardiology. I have picked up a pattern of cellular stasis effects that suggests that Statins might have some merit in critical acute illness - BUT never should they be more than a stop gap.
Understanding the power of mevalonate inhibition will make the use of these drugs safer in very limited applications. Its a shame that people are still misled by the crazy notion of a "pathogenic cholesterol".
We now have a turf war developing between the pharmacy and the food industries that will expose the fuller extent statin ADRs situation.Glynwiki (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cholesterol depletion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to LRP4

Iatrogenic hypocholesterolemia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to LRP4

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Iatrogenic hypocholesterolemia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iatrogenic hypocholesterolemia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iatrogenic hypocholesterolemia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BiologicalMe (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]