|Jmh649 is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.|
World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines (WHO-EM)
Hi, I have been informed that you are the one leaving the WHO-EM society and culture information and while I am glad someone is, I would like to tell you about the problems in your citation. For one, you fail to put a space in between "Essential" and "Medicines" and secondly you do not add "format=PDF" to the cite, which could warning people using their smartphones to access Wikipedia against downloading a PDF. I have been trying to fix these errors myself, but there's a bucket load of them and in case new drugs are added to the list I think it would be best to inform you too. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 00:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Could you please put back the reference of the ICD as it was before? i dont know how to do it. Thanks (vulvodynia) Merid76
A barnstar for you!
Sunscreen History Edit.
In response to your over-ruling edit on sunscreen, can you please enlighten me with why the following statement is allowed on Wikipedia:
"The first effective sunscreen may have been developed by chemist Franz Greiter in 1946. The product, called Gletscher Crème (Glacier Cream), subsequently became the basis for the company Piz Buin (named in honor of the place Greiter allegedly obtained the sunburn that inspired his concoction), which is still today a marketer of sunscreen products. It has been estimated that Gletscher Crème had a sun protection factor of 2."
which is resourced on a webarchive here:
which simply states at the last bullet point that:
"1946 - Prof. Franz Greiter invents the world's first sun protection product."
Where are the clinical references to that statement?
Whilst neither myself nor Bridgedragon have added any references to our statements, it appears that the the above statement from an old webpage (now archived) is also not referenced.
I will endeavour to back up our statements in regard to the South Australian, Milton Blake and will repost to Wiki when fixed.
ps - not to nit-pick....but the referral to the TRIP website is not welcome. Searching for "Sunscreen Development History" will give you 237 articles to review...none of which actually have any relevance to the development history of sunscreen (at least the 236 articles I read through - maybe it's in the last place I looked!).
Why reinvent the wheel - cc is an easy eye catcher and the link to the reference backs up the research. Only part of my edit was cc's. Bridgedragon, whom I have not met, was much more concise in his/her edit - yet you deemed that cc'd as well?? I'm meeting with Milton Blake's grandson over the next week or so to clarify the references. In the meantime, try Smarties 😃.
Yep - fair call...carbon copy. Should be c&p shouldn't it. For your future reference, c&p shall mean "Copy and Paste". Thanks for highlighting your CDO (Compulsive Disorder Obsessive)
Also, your reference here..
is confusing. Above the Sunscreen History section, there is a paragraph that suggests the first commercially available sunscreen was introduced in the US in 1928! Whilst you only referenced the section in Sunscreen history that claims it was probably developed in 1938 and not in common use until 1944. So which reference should we believe? Why do you deem http://www.skincancer.org more reputable than http://www.humantouchofchemistry.com when clearly they [skin cancer.org] are also able to confuse data?
Hi Jmh649 seems like the format I used for these 2 references was not correct. Both references are from Medline-indexed journals with a high impact factor. Can you help me further? This is my 3rd Wiki contribution, therefore I am quite new to this. Much thanks Maharani303
ok, I will paraphrase all, imagine that english is not my first language. The 2013 vulvodynia guideline update is up to date the newest review article about the topic. I also made some other changes that you reverted for instance I putted vulvar vestibulitis under the definition of vulvodynia, and it was under possible causes. I dont know why you reverted that, seems more logic since vulvar vestivulitis is a subtype of vulvodynia (the most frequent one) and not a cause. Merid76
how do you avoid p copy and paste if you are citing a specific definition given by someone? I think the definition of the ISSVD and the tretatments I had added made the article better! I will try to paraphrase, but don´t you think the article is less complete now? I understand, copy and paste is not an option, but in certain times couldn`t it be? when you are defining something? Meri 11:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I am unclear why you would have deleted the links I left on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer. The links were to two books, which I have been given the rights to distribute and there is more information in them, written by established, accredited and noteworthy medical professionals who specialize in the subject matter. I understand that it's not traditional but neither is the idea of publishing current books online for free consumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eachpage (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Deass back at it
I understand why you did this: The information was already under bleeding, which should be a subsection of "cardio-vascular". "Redundancy under Bleeding" would've been a more accurate summary. To remind you of orthodoxy before someone wrote an overly simple editorial here, it is not normal to remove epidemiology when a review supports it. That way, people can know not only what trustworthy reviewers know, but what they are relying upon. Citations in a review relevant to anti-coagulants and SSRIs should include both studies on anti-coaglant mechanisms (SERT), and supporting material for a mechanism in the fact that citalopram and escitalopram (the most serotonin-specific drugs in this class) have the strongest effect on bleeding (when combined with Aspirin, for example). Documenting the mechanism lets pharmacists advise psychiatrists to use less serotonin-specific anti-depressants when this effect becomes a problem; when Aspirin is for pain, and not a heart medication. I realize that goes against advice from your favourite editorial. I do not mind if you use that editorial as a starting point for selecting sources. Deleting both the facts and the sources, just because you did not find material designed for use (a review) is not a good idea. We are not here to dumb articles down to basis for practise. We are here to wise people up to how pharmacologists learn to advise them. You are good at tersening and clarity, you always score when you find a link, and her paraphrasal was not a cut and paste; "Rephrasing and linking" would've been a more accurate summary. /JWL 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You referred me to a meta-analysis that says SSRIs hav no association (insignificant association, anyway) with CHD. They also said (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.33), which *is* significant. I do not know what they mean, because 95% is the standard for significance in the biological sciences. In any case, WP:MEDRS does not apply to mathematics, which is a field in the Arts.
Hi James, just to let you know that I've submitted FGM for peer review, prior to (possibly) submitting it for FAC. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Female genital mutilation/archive1, in case you'd like to comment, but don't feel obliged. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Request unprotection of candidiasis
I am thinking of doing some work on this page (see the talk page). Please could you unprotect it or reduce the protection to pending changes please? Thank you, 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 July 2014
Thanks as always for reaching out.
By way of explanation and introduction, assuming you haven't seen it, this is in my post on the talk page of ketamine:
"Bluerasberry, thanks for your response, it is very helpful in understanding the environment at wiki. Maybe this will help regarding my efforts here - I am using my own name and there is this thing called google which covers me quite nicely. If you dig, you'll find that my data changed the telecommunications laws of this country, twice. And the MMJ laws of Arizona. I actually know how to use statistics to tell the truth, a rare skill these days. I simply do not have the time to edit this page in person. I've already got the ACLU signed up to do a Freedom of Information Act request to gain ketamine data from the government - they or someone else would be happy to edit this page as I've described. This effort is not about Advocacy, it is about civil liberties (the right of citizens to know what their government knows) and specifically at Wiki a page that has been driven by interests that did not want an accurate portrayal of ketamine. Ask 10 people about ketamine, and 8 will say it is a horse tranquilizer and drug of abuse. Two weeks ago the wiki page reinforced that image. Now it does so to a lesser degree. My sole objective is to have the definition of ketamine accurately reflect the available data on medicinal and abuse issues. "
Sorry for the lack of humility, but I was forced into establishing credentials, again.
Highly Contagious Tuberculosis
Dear Dr. Heilman,
Re the section on transmission on the tuberculosis page, the existence of highly contagious TB strains should be acknowledged.
Reply posted to ongoing thread
I posted my reply to your comment at User talk:QuackGuru#Refs into body rather than here to maintain the thread of conversation (I guess I am more pig headed than I realized). Thanks for your contributions and input. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
with ORS, we may end up making the same mistake as with infant formula.
Okay, let's start with the premise that parents in poor parts of the world are just as intelligent as you and I, they simply may not have the formal schooling in science. They might get the idea that infant formula is 'more scientific' or otherwise 'better' for their baby, and certainly some of the marketing of Nestle Corp. and other companies imply this.
We might end up making a similar mistake in the way we promote ORS as 'better' or 'more scientific,' even without the profit motive on our part. If parents end up giving their child nothing till they make a four-hour bus trip to pick up a packet of ORS, we haven't exactly done them any favor.
I think we're better off putting forward the approach of the WHO publication, basically to start early and often with available home fluids, the salted and unsalted rice water, the lightly salted yogurt, the weak unsweetened tea, the whole range. This seems to be the major recommendation. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241593180.pdf page 9 (13 in PDF)
HOW ABOUT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HELL IT IS YOU CHANGE BEFORE CHANGING IT
I am proud that you chose a discussion option. I hope you understand my bias in favour of extending WP:AGF to many PubMed documents that you may hav excluded out of hand in the past with your recent changes patrolling and loyalty to your fans on wikipedia. I hope you accept that there may be many exceptions to the safety of SSRIs in stratified data.
SSRI -- what's that you say?
In the SSRI article, you wrote: "While TCAs may increase the rate of coronary heart disease SSRIs due to appear to affect the risk."
That's fine too, but while you've described the national headquarters function, the affiliates provide direct supportive services. So you've actually now made it less accurate instead of more. Dwpaul Talk 23:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)