User talk:Io io editor

MS

The problem for me is the source of the information [1] There may well be useful information in this, but this website is not where it should be sourced from. Maybe you want to drop him/her a line. I know nothing about this sort of stuff. --Slp1 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From garrondo

As may have already seen I try to avoid any edit-wars, since for me wikipedia is just a hobby. I try to improve any article if I can, but if somebody else thinks otherwise I won't fight much. What I have modified on natalizumab is mostly style reducing redundant info (but it was truth that there was excessive info on the matter). Regarding MS treatments... I won't fight for the table, since its true that it may be difficult to integrate opposing works.Nevertheless I think it was a good try. At the same time next few months I won't be able to contribute as much as I was used to.--Garrondo (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied content from talk:natalizumab

Per my comment on Talk:Natalizumab#Undue_weight, I am userfying this, and any future comments on the undue weight placed on liver injury or PML in the natalizumab article. No one, not a single other editor, agrees, despite raising the issue many, many times. This is tendentious editing and a waste of everyone's time, borderline disruptive editing. Without a new source, your ongoing claims of undue weight have no merit and you have never succeeded in convincing anyone. So let it go unless you have a reliable source that explicitly agrees with your position. WLU (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The manner in which the hundreds of other Wiki editors have written hundreds of other pharmaceutical pages is the de-facto Wiki standard.
The Hepatotoxicity page reveals that 900 other drugs cause Liver Injury.
Drugs causing liver injury include Tylenol where you can read that it alone causes 50% of acute liver-related hospital admissions in USA.
Other classes include VERY COMMON drugs:

--1. NSAIDs, consisting of aspirin, advil, phenylbutazone, sulindac, phenylbutazone, piroxicam, diclofenac and indomethacin.

--2. Glucocorticoids consisting of Hydrocortisone, Prednisone, Prednisolone, Methylprednisolone, Dexamethasone, Betamethasone, Triamcinolone, Beclometasone, Fludrocortisone, Aldosterone]].

A quick look at all of these pages and most confine mention of the liver issue to a single sentence. Only real comparable to N page is Tylenol.
Also listed on the Hepatotoxicity page are:

--3. Natural products (mushrooms!) and

--4. Herbal and alternative remedies

Looking at herbalism reveals no mention.
Clearly the treatment of the liver issue on the N page is unique among all other Wiki pages of drugs known to cause liver injury, and is therefore very heavy-wp:weight.
The great majority of these drugs, being over-the-counter medicine, are easy to over-dose on. With N, that is impossible.
Remembering too that NONE of these are Disease-Modyfing Drugs proven to arrest Serious Progressive Illness. If you get a liver injury from something in your medicine cabinet, then it is the worst thing you have. However if you get the liver injuries that have occurred in the 0.1% of 20,000 N-treated MS and CD patients, then the worst thing you have is still MS and CD.io_editor (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care much about what other drugs do not say. It only indicates a clear lack of content. If liver injury is as important as you say every drug article should specify it (but I don't have time for the 900 hundred; I hope other people will do it in other articles, such as paracetamol, one of the very few FA on drugs, in which the very first paragraph of secondary effects says that its worst danger is liver injury, with a very similar paragraph to one we have right now here.) Nobody implies that N should not be taken because of its possibility of liver injury but is a fact that danger does exist, and therefore should be said. Finally after yesterday edits space given to liver injury has been greatly reduced, since it was true that some info was over-remarked, but I believe that now that is mostly overcome. --Garrondo (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the medicine of Serious Progressive Illness, we should only care about Right and Wrong. Be assured, the page is Wrong on the liver issue, in several locations. I dont mean Wrong in the context of Wiki, I mean concoction by people who know little or nothing on the subject.io_editor (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say you are Righting a Wrong? No-one, NOT A SINGLE OTHER EDITOR, AT ANY POINT HAS AGREED YOUR POSITION HAS MERIT. NOT <large>ONE</large>. Admins, editors who regularly edit pages on drugs and disease, doctors, individuals with the conditions treated by natalizumab, none have fond your position to have any merit. Give it up. Replace it on the talk page and I will report it on AN/I as disruptive editing and we shall see what administrators have to say. If your position is the mainstream, it should be easy to verify. NONE of your sources support your position, and your original research syntheses of sources that do not mention natalizumab are a violation of policy and STILL failed to convince. You may have to accept that given the sources extant, your position is unconvincing and has no merit. If sources in the future explicitly agree with your point, bring it up then and present the source. WLU (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PML section

No, I was pretty much done. The only mentions left in the article outside of the PML section are (1) in the lead, where I am absolutely confident it belongs, and (2) in the Interactions section because, well, the only significant interactions of natalizumab are with other immunosuppressants. Please feel free to revise the liver injury section; just be reasonable and know that your edits may of course be reverted, trimmed, copy edited, or expanded... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the PML in 4 sections, including the Lead, as before. The big difference is that it now has its own prominent sub-section. Your edits puzzle me, because on the Talk page you appear to propose differently? I simplified my position here, and I would like you to read that in detail, including the links therein, so that your editing or direction can be fully informed. Bon Soir.io_editor (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my edits were exactly as I intended them; I removed redundant content about PML from "Legal status", and elsewhere, into a dedicated section. Are you saying you'd like all mention of PML removed from the other sections? That's impossible; it's necessary for context, as I actually noted here. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood different, it appeared that the AE section was going to coalesce content. Certainly I have never said that all mention of PML - or even of the liver injury issue, despite the theatrical spin - should be removed from the page. What I said was that the page should look like one from an encyclopedia - and this encyclopedia would do fine as a model. The example pages that I gave in any my auto-immune disease comparisons were quite reasonable. Let me ask you: do you know how many DMDs are approved for more than one serious indication? And these are huge indications, covering 5m-8m people in the western world. If you look at what Laetoli and I wrote on the Therapies for MS talk page, we both agreed that patients WILL read these pages - and many of them on the cusp of a decision which will perhaps define the rest of their lives. And this update is what is happening in N mono-therapy. You surely saw this guy on the benzo page - wouldn't you tell him its time to live in 2008? And yet the benefits are confined to a single section, per disease, the description far smaller than the sum of the PML/death stuff. Separately, I just looked at someone's talk page, and it is sickening the extent of the "mobilization". Take a look, you will find it - quite shocking if you know what areas of medicine you are in. If you dont agree (I recall 1 or 2 of the 3 incumbents insisting that WP does not give a damn about patients), to save each others time just say so and then I will stop adding content and look at Wiki-available resources tomorrow or next week. Bon Soir.io_editor (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mixed chimerism.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mixed chimerism.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am answering here on your talkpage, because given the content it is probably more appropriate here. Thanks for your post on the talkpage of Treatment of multiple sclerosis. I think we may be getting somewhere. Io io, as I said before, WP is a very different place: the writing/information that is desired here is different from an academic paper or other websites. It takes some getting used to, so I understand some of the problems here. It is great that you are enthusiastic for Natalizumab, but this really is a 'boring' place and can't be used to to promote medical advances however exciting they are, or to right the negative publicity problem of the media. It just isn't the role of this place. And you are going to be constantly frustated (and frankly frustrating to other editors!) until you realize this. You also need to realize that we work on consensus, and since you need to convince other editors, simply repeating the same questions and points over and over again doesn't work, or help. For example, I have explained multiple times why I object to the table, so have other editors, and yet you continue to argue for it (or 'comparator studies'), without addressing any of the specific reasons for our concerns. It is synthesis, as you yourself agree, and therefore cannot be included, no matter how much you think it would help MS patients. Rightly or wrongly, policies such as No original research, Consensus, Verifiability are non-negotiable, and not understanding these and how they impact editors and editing are also important to understand.

Io io, you are obviously a smart, committed person, with lots of wonderful knowledge and skills to offer this encyclopedia. It would be great if this energy and information could be harnessed in a productive way. I am wondering if you would be interested in having a mentor, someone who is experienced in Wikipedia and not involved in the disputes, someone who could help and advise you. There is a program called Adopt a User that might be useful for you I think, WP:ADOPT. If you are interested, you could apply there, or I would also be happy to recommend some names too. I really think this would be helpful for you, but let me know what you think! --Slp1 (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have explained multiple times about your objections, but please dont wave wp:con at me for THIS page, because I am waiting patiently to hear what Laetoli has to say, I have some common ground with him, seems to have a real knowledge and experience in MS, perhaps more than my own. I dont think you have been very helpful "circling the wagons" objecting to the table so broadly on some spurious grounds, first because it came from "different sources" and second because "meta-analyses" are better, and now you clearly have Natalizumab in your crosshairs and do not like at all to see the gaping gap in efficacy, which as I said it the #1 patient issue. I have conceded that the table could be seen indeed as synthesis, but is it just "to advance an editor's position", just because of one column that compares Disability Progression proofs?

And to be clear, if Laetoli has other objections beyond the Cochrane reviews, the Table will have to be substantially modified or it wont come back at all - I will leave him a note later, or if you like, you can. But to me this is a Content Dispute, and I only want to discuss Content. And for some reason you clearly target efficacy of N, despite what the NEJM editorial states, and despite the facts, and despite that a total of 4 of the 6 drugs have proven to limit Disability.

Finally put yourself in front of this PC, as I wonder why people who are not knowledgeable in MS treatment have such a committment to tackle the only major therapeutical advance in many years from both ends of the stick and in a concerted manner. What am I supposed to think - will I ever figure it out? Where does medical science come in the priority list?.......io_editor (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I have no idea what you mean by wp:con that I am supposed to be waving at you. But in any case, you are sadly mistaken: I have no opinion either for or against natalizumab. I frankly don't care. My objections are purely on policy/guidelines grounds, and no amount of discussion with Laetoli or others is going to change these. In fact, I would be delighted if you could find an article that compared the drugs' efficacies in the way you want to compare them, because then this discussion would be over.

I urge you to think seriously about the accusations you have made above about me (using spurious arguments, bias etc): they do not help the situation one little bit. And I really do recommend that you ask for an unbiased, independent mentor to help you navigate this website. Slp1 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referrring to the very long discourse you wrote about meta-analyses (targetting interferons) - however that was not what was bothering you in the end. I did say I was open to 2 solutions. Yet you are only open to 1 solution, and you say "no amount of discussion with Laetoli or others is going to change" that. What more can I say?io_editor (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

For your interest: [2]. Antelan 14:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editor's last contribution was in April 2008. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Crohn's disease organizations worldwide

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Crohn's disease organizations worldwide, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]