User talk:BallenaBlanca

Welcome!

Hello, BallenaBlanca, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Cirt (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Restoring deleted content to other user's talk pages

Per WP:OWNTALK, editors are free to remove almost anything except "declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags" from their own talk pages - you shouldn't restore such material. If anything the blanking is a useful sign that they've read it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Celiac disease and epilepsy

An interesting discussion. The 2008 ref says "Bottom line There are the same methodological issues in the epilepsy literature as there were in the ataxia and neuropathy literature already discussed. From the evidence-based perspective, there is conflicting evidence whether there is or is not an association between coeliac disease or auto-antibodies and epilepsy. As yet there is no compelling evidence that there is a causal relation. There probably is a specific syndrome—coeliac disease with epilepsy and calcifications—which is rare and perhaps geographically specific."

So adjusted our text. By the way welcome to Wikipedia it is great having you join us :-) User:Samir is another gastroentrologist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Gluten-free diet. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved and approved the inclusion of the information I proposed. See: [1] --BallenaBlanca (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Gluten-free diet page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on this page. I still have work to do in it and I am checking errors. Fixed. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Gluten editing

You seem to be on a mission to relate gluten-sensitivity or non-celiac gluten sensitivity to the articles on wheat, pasta and gluten. I have reverted or edited the additions following WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:NOTADVICE and WP:OR. The Italian group publications you cite are opinion articles which you then are summarizing with your own interpretations and advice, leading to original research and provision of advice. This is clearly inappropriate for wheat and pasta, and is not central to the gluten article, as enough is already stated for CD and NCGS; please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Zefr (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hellow, @Zefr:. I do not see where the problem is. It's enough to take a look at the definition of the disease. There is a lot of sources, growing literature, about non-celiac gluten sensitivity. One example (this is not a free-access paper, but I have it):

Noncoeliac gluten sensitivity NCGS is a clinical condition in which intestinal and extraintestinal symptoms are triggered by gluten ingestion, in the absence of coeliac disease and wheat allergy. The symptoms usually occur soon after gluten ingestion, improve or disappear within hours or a few days after gluten withdrawal, and relapse following its reintroduction. Vriezinga SL, Schweizer JJ, Koning F, Mearin ML (Sep 2015). "Coeliac disease and gluten-related disorders in childhood". Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol (Review) 12 (9): 527–36. doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2015.98. PMID 26100369

We can't talk about gluten, wheat, barley,ride, and all of its hybrids and derivatives, and its health effects without mentioning non-celiac gluten sensitivity. This syndrome was originally described in the 1980s and included since 2010 in the spectrum of gluten-related disorders.

It seems that you are systematically deleting all information about non-celiac gluten sensitivity. This practice seems an attempt to bias the information and does not fit neutral point of view.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, my reverts began with WP:NPOV, especially for the pasta article which mentions gluten (with wikilink) as a component of some pastas, so is adequately stated for the general user. Discussion of NCGS is WP:OFFTOPIC and leads to an advisory for a small percentage of users, per WP:NOTADVICE. --Zefr (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Zefr:Gluten is the component of most pastas, not "some" pastas. Coeliac people represent 1-2% of the general population and non-celiac gluten sensitivity sufferers up to 13%. Information about special pastas for coeliacs were already present, before my first editions:

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Northamerica1000 (talk | contribs) at 13:41, 7 December 2015

Since the time of Cato, basic pasta dough has been made mostly of wheat flour or semolina,[4] with durum wheat used predominantly in the South of Italy and soft wheat in the North. Regionally other grains have been used, including those from barley, buckwheat, rye, rice, and maize, as well as chestnut and chickpea flours. In modern times to meet the demands of coeliac sufferers and similar diets, the use of rice, maize and whole durum wheat has become commercially significant. Grain flours may also be supplemented with cooked potatoes.

But, I repeat, we can't talk about coeliac disease or gluten-related disorders without mention non-celiac gluten sensitivity. I have not made any recommendation, only neutral information which updates the outdated (and dangerous) previous. To do otherwise or delete this is biased information and does not fit neutral point of view.:

Revision as of 11:57, 11 December 2015 BallenaBlanca (→‎Ingredients: Not only coeliac sufferers. Expanding. Sources: (Jun 2015) PMID 26060112; (2013) PMID 23797124; (Mar 1, 2006) PMID 16480395)

Since the time of Cato, basic pasta dough has been made mostly of wheat flour or semolina,[4] with durum wheat used predominantly in the South of Italy and soft wheat in the North. Regionally other grains have been used, including those from barley, buckwheat, rye, rice, and maize, as well as chestnut and chickpea flours. In modern times to meet the demands of people affected by gluten-related disorders (such as celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity sufferers[27][28][29]) and similar diets, the use of rice, maize and whole durum wheat has become commercially significant. Grain flours may also be supplemented with cooked potatoes.

Bold, my new text. Where is a recommendation or not neutral point of view in this edition, that you reverted in (→‎Ingredients: rv off-topic or unsourced vague content & ref) a posterior review? Off-topic? Unsourced? Vague...?

And I have no words to express this "In modern times to meet the demands of coeliac sufferers and similar diets, the use of rice, maize and whole durum wheat has become commercially significant.". that were present before my editions and I corrected at this one (→‎Ingredients: Durum wheat for coeliac patients or other gluten-related disorders sufferers!? It contains gluten!) It is clear the lack of information that had who wrote it!

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Celiac vs. coeliac, fyi. When in doubt about American etymology, use the spelling with the fewest characters. --Zefr (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

NCGS and WP:NOTJOURNAL

BallenaBlanca: your editing on Gluten still impresses as "over the top" of the general intent for a lay encyclopedia, violating WP:NOTJOURNAL by extensively detailed content and over-sourcing. Please review WP:CITEKILL, especially this section, where your content is more like a scholarly review article for your field of medicine, rather than providing general content for the typical Wikipedia user. Thanks for your attention and improvements on behalf of the lay users. --Zefr (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Zefr, thank you very much for your kindness and your explanations. I've been reading this with attention and I agree with you. Really, I did not like the result of the listing of NCGS symptoms, but I thought it was better like this to facilitate review.

I will edit following your advices and simplifying, and completing the NGCs manifestations, which in this version are very scarce and not enough representative, to clarify for our lay readers.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
• Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages!

Welcome

Hi!
I haven't seen you around before, but I saw your excellent edits on Breastfeeding and Gluten (I had previously marked the paragraph on gluten in breastfeeding for removal in my head, but you beat me to it). Anyway I really want to invite you to the medicine WikiProject at WP:MED. We also have an excellent discussion page at WT:MED where we can help out and discuss issues that crop up while editing—feel free to introduce yourself to the community with a post there.
(I threw in our introductory message because it has some good links in it.)
Best, CFCF 💌 📧 15:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, CFCF. Thank you so much for your words. It is an honor for me!

I'm so glad you're interested in this topic. There is much work to be done. I hope we can cooperate in the future!

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, CFCF! I followed your advice [2] --BallenaBlanca (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I just saw your edits to the Delayed puberty article, and, like CFCF, I also think you are a fine editor. I was wondering how you got so good at understanding WP:MEDRS so quickly (though, just so you know, primary sources for medical content at Wikipedia are occasionally allowed; WP:MEDRS is clear about that). When I saw this edit you left on Doc James's talk page, it was clear to me that the reason you caught on so quickly to Wikipedia editing is perhaps because you'd previously been editing the Spanish Wikipedia. Anyway, if you are interested, the Puberty and Precocious puberty articles could use your attention. Both articles need all-around better sourcing, and I've been slow to significantly improving them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Noting here that the discussion continued at my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sjogren's Syndrome page on Hormones

Hi BallenaBlanca,

I appreciate your passion in editing Wikipedia - it seems you have a special interest in rheumatic diseases.

I would kindly ask that you stop removing primary sources that I added to the section on hormones in Sjogren's syndrome. The Wikipedia medical source guidelines state that primary sources are acceptable when supported by secondary sources, so deleting my contributions was not necessary/was contrary to Wikipedia posting guidelines.

Also, you strongly weakened the text on testosterone administration, when there is overwhelming evidence that testosterone is suppressive to lymphocytic infiltrate in dry eye/exocrine gland dysfunction. This has been shown via intraperitoneal testosterone pellets, testosterone creams/emulsions for topical administration, and testosterone/DHEA eye drops. It is worth investigating whether intramuscular testosterone has the same effect.

I think we both just want the most accurate and up-to-date information to be on Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B102:97AC:B8B9:6B97:8172:D965 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ip 173.162.170.106, ip 2600:1000:B102:97AC:B8B9:6B97:8172:D965...? May be better that you register a user to make more easy to talk with you.

I will agree with the editions that follow Wikipedia policies. That has not been the case so far. You can find reliable secondary sources in PubMed (activating review filter). Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, you must have searched for all of my contributions by IP address. You systematically removed/edited every single edit I made over the course a few days. These were the contributions to "Intestinal Permeability", "Pathogenic E. coli" and "Sjogren's syndrome". Since you went through my edit history, I felt personally targeted. Also, there didn't seem to be consistency in the edits you made...on the "Pathogenic E. coli" page, you removed my entire contribution, when more than half of the other types of pathogenic E. coli weren't even cited. So, what is the bigger sin? Citing a primary source, or not citing anything at all? 173.162.170.106 (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia are a team working together. Each of us plays a part of the job. It is common practice to review edits made by a new user or a user not complying with Wikipedia policies, in order to try to help and to teach him/her, or to revert vandalisms.

I must say you, for example, that you can not copy the text literally, as you did in this edit: [3] So I will undo it again.

If you need help, we can help you. You can ask everything you need. Also, you can see this: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user

You are welcome to Wikipedia, you can contribute to improve it. It is logical to make mistakes at first. I invite you once again to create a user so you have your own talk page to communicate with others.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't address the fact that you left the uncited sections untouched, yet you target mine with citations that you consider primary. I still feel you are specifically targeting me, and not editing Wikipedia for the greater good - edification of the general populace 173.162.170.106 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I just answered. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you BallenaBlanca - I will be sure to strengthen my future Wikipedia posts by adhering closely to Wikipedia policies. I may create an account - to date, I haven't seen the purpose in one, but maybe it would be useful in order for me to better keep track of articles I'm interested in. All the best to you. 173.162.170.106 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Irritable bowel syndrome

There are many more primary sources cited in this text. --Munja (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Munja: That doesn't mean it's right. Maybe the page should be reviewed per WP:MEDRS. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Vídeo sobre la enfermedad celíaca

BallenaBlanca! Lo encontré y lo acabo de ver, me ahorro las palabras, ya las has dicho todas tu. Sobre commons, la verdad que no tengo ni idea y hace años que no sigo aquel proyecto aiii, no da el tiempo de sí para todo .. Pero allí mismo o en la es puedes preguntar a Rastrojo o Ezarate, por ejemplo, ambos son administradores en los dos proyectos e igual te pueden decir si se puede advertir de alguna manera.
Un abrazo grande :) --Yeza (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

¡Hola Yeza! ¡Qué bien encontrarte aquí! Te respondo en mi página, haciéndote ping, porque parece que "se estila" más por estos lares...  :)

Muchísimas gracias, una vez más, por tu ayuda. Parece que el tema se puede resolver más que satisfactoriamente: [4] De todos modos, la información que me has dado me viene de maravilla, pues a veces me surgen dudas en Commons y ahora ya sé quién me puede ayudar. En una ocasión hice una consulta a otro usuario de Commons, pero no me respondió.  :/

¡Un abrazo! --BallenaBlanca (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

IBD

I think the detail you have added to inflammatory bowel disease regarding coeliac disease is not relevant there. Yes what you are saying may be correct but this is too specialized for the IBD article but may be OK for coeliac disease. As you know, we try to use Secondary sources and to write for a general readership. Jrfw51 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Replied.

One question: why do you say "we try to use Secondary sources"? The three sources I used in IBD are secondary sources. I always use secondary sources. Let's take a look:

30. "Inflammatory Bowel Disease" (PDF). World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines. August 2015. Retrieved Mar 13, 2016.

31. Lewis NR, Scott BB (Jul 1, 2006). "Systematic review: the use of serology to exclude or diagnose coeliac disease (a comparison of the endomysial and tissue transglutaminase antibody tests)". Aliment Pharmacol Ther (Review) 24 (1): 47–54. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02967.x. PMID 16803602.

32. Rodrigo L, Garrote JA, Vivas S (Sep 6, 2008). "[Celiac disease]". Med Clin (Barc) (Review) (in Spanish) 131 (7): 264–70. doi:10.1016/S0025-7753(08)72247-4. PMID 18775218

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you think about the comments here

[5] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

And apologies for being persistent. But I believe strongly that it is important to have the lead in fairly easy to understand English :-)

Thanks for all your work by the way. I agree the lead is much improved from when we started. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Do not worry Doc James. I really appreciate your help with wording! We two are doing a good job. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the lead is too complex with too many slightly different reviews being cited. Some of these points need to be in the main body of the text but we cannot cover it all here. Also minor errors are being introduced. Mortality needs to be stated over a specific time -- we all die in the end! Gluten is not a wheat protein -- gliadin is. Your activity makes it difficult to make these corrections! Jrfw51 (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Information about gluten was already present. I did not write it. Yes, gluten is a mixture of proteins found in wheat and related grains. It is easy to correct it. At this moment I stop and "let you breathe". ;-) Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Medical advocacy

Hi BallenaBlanca. I want to call your attention to Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine), specifically to the section on Common mistakes and the third row there; in my view you are over-emphasizing the possible role of gluten in ADHD, and promoting a minority view in the field. There is no reason I can see to explain why you are pushing to include content about that small, single arm study from 10 years ago, other than than advocacy. Please consider whether you are leading with your passion here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jytdog. I already know these policies. I have no COI. And my edits are always supported by secondary reliable sources, peer-reviewed, and PubMed indexed.

In ADHD, let's see what says Doc James and we will tranquilamente (Spanish word) calmly reach an agreement. I understand that this issue results new, "amazing" and "thorny". But Wikipedia may reflect all points of view, whith neutrality.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying you have a COI nor asking if you have one; I did not write to you about COI at all, but rather about advocacy. You didn't pay attention to what I actually wrote above. Please do. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I understood. And for this reason I replied "In ADHD, let's see what says Doc James and we will calmly reach an agreement. I understand that this issue results new, "amazing" and "thorny".

Gluten is often a contentious issue, knowledge have changed a lot and it is difficult to assimilate it for most people (I understand that it is logical to happen). For example, it was the same in the case of autism. It was resolved favorably:

• Previous text: "Evidence of the diet's efficacy as an autism treatment is poor.[21] Studies, including one by the University of Rochester, found that the popular autism diet does not demonstrate behavioral improvement and fails to show any genuine benefit to children diagnosed with autism who do not also have a known digestive condition which benefits from a gluten-free diet.[22]"
• And after talking (current version): "Although popularly used as an alternative treatment for people with autism, there is no good evidence that a gluten-free diet is of benefit in treating the symptoms of autism.[47][48][49] However, in a subset of autistic patients who have a genuine gluten sensitivity, there is limited evidence that suggests that a gluten-free diet may improve some autistic behaviors.[12][31][35][49]"]

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

About the autism thing, thanks for pointing that out - I will review those sources to see if we really should say "may improve some autistic behaviors."

Listen - the mission of Wikipedia is to provide the public with summaries of accepted knowledge. Not cutting edge knowledge, not emerging knowledge. Accepted knowledge. It is an abuse of Wikipedia to use it as platform for making people more aware of anything (see WP:SOAPBOX) and it seems that all your work here is focused in driving content about gluten into the encyclopedia. This is not OK.

We get advocates in Wikipedia pushing all kinds of stuff and trying to give it prominence far beyond its place in the literature. Please restrain your enthusiasm for the gluten hypotheses when you edit Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve and update Medicine articles. I edit on issues in which I can be useful and in which I have knowledge. Regarding gluten intolerance, they were very outdated. The information I include is supported by current scientific evidence, is not a gluten hypotheses. I am not trying to give it prominence far beyond its place in the literature, I'm adjusting to the current knowledge.

But it's not all I do. Currently I have 175 pages on my watchlist and I patrol them undoing vandalism, etc. Nevertheless, language limits me to do more work. Each of us contribute within our means. It is not incorrect.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am travelling and have come down with a cold. Have limited time to look into this but will try to get to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Kallmann syndrome.

Hello,

I see you have twice deleted a link of the page "Kallmann syndrome". The link is to a website for further information on Kallmann syndrome. I do not see how this goes against the Wikipedia policy for external links. The website is authored mainly by me but it is not a blog or social media site. It is a medical information site with information and links that would be of interest to people with Kallmann syndrome. I am the primary author of the website because it is a rare condition and there are not any other information websites to link to. It is not a website for personal gain it is there solely to expand on the information on Kallmann syndrome mentioned in the original Wikipedia article. From what I have read regarding external links this is perfectly acceptable. Even though I am only a patent I work closely with KS medical specialists to ensure the accuracy of both the Wikipedia page and the external website.

I do not believe that the fact I am the main author for the external site should prevent me from putting an external link form the Wikipedia page, which I have provided the majority of content for.

Please could you reconsider the decision. I wish to re-install the link but will wait until I hear your reply.

Thank you.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilsmith38 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I realy sorry Neilsmith38, I appreciate your effort and your work, but Wikipedia policies are clear: Links normally to be avoided: ... Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that that link (www.delayed-puberty.com) is a personal web page and it most certainly is not a blog or fansite. It is a information web page for the rare medical condition that the Wikipedia article is about and expands on the information provided on the Wikipedia page which I think is allowed under the external link rules.

Is it possible to get a second opinion on this matter ?

I have had external links to the previous websites (www.kallmanns.org) and (HYPOHH.net) in the past with no complaints or issues. This is a new website which will replace the two old ones. I believe the link can fall under the category of point 4 of the links to be considered "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

I do not want to get into an argument over this and I will not revert the edit but I feel very strongly about this and think it is a valid link to an external source which is closely vetted by KS medical specialists and is a good source of additional information, which from what I read is allowed under the external link guidelines. You can see from the history of the Kallmann syndrome page that this a topic of great interest to me and I take care in the content I put on the page.

Thank you. Neilsmith38 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can get a second opinion. It's a good idea. For example Doc James. I will not put any objection to what is decided.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet more UNDUE on gluten

i will ask you again; please stop pushing gluten sensitivity into articles across Wikipedia. As I pointed out to you above, we have had issues with medical professionals using Wikipedia to try to advance their pet theories. This is not OK. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll be glad to talk with you when you stop insisting saying things as "imposing your view", "promoting a minority view in the field", "enthusiasm for the gluten hypotheses", "advocacy", " pet theories" etc. This is not a "minority view", nor a "gluten hypotheses" nor "my view", nor a "pet theory"...

ESPGHAN Working Group on Coeliac Disease Diagnosis; ESPGHAN Gastroenterology Committee; European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (Jan 2012). "European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition guidelines for the diagnosis of coeliac disease" (PDF). J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr (Practice Guideline) 54 (1): 136–60. doi:10.1097/MPG.0b013e31821a23d0. PMID 22197856

ESPGHAN guidelines for the diagnosis of CD were last published in 1990 (1) and at that time represented a significant improvement in both the diagnosis and management of CD. Since 1990, the understanding of the pathological processes of CD has increased enormously, leading to a change in the clinical paradigm of CD from a chronic, gluten-dependent enteropathy of childhood to a systemic disease with chronic immune features affecting different organ systems.

And since 2010, non-celiac gluten sensitivity has been included in the spectrum of gluten-related disorders. The definition and diagnostic criteria of non-celiac gluten sensitivity was debated and established by three consensus conferences.

The Oslo definitions for coeliac disease and related terms Gut (Impact factor: 14.66) 2013 Jan;62(1):43-52. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301346. Epub 2012 Feb 16.PMID 22345659

As understanding of CD has advanced, new disease associations have been regularly found and populations tested for CD have changed in response.(...) This review was based on PubMed literature searches and expert meetings. We aimed to define key concepts relevant to CD and related disorders. The character of the current paper implies that we did not pool any data or use any statistical tools. Instead, we assembled an international team of recognised experts in CD research, discussed definitions and tried to reach a consensus. This approach is similar to that of previous papers on definitions of CD.2e4 As opposed to previous studies,2e4 however, we did not limit ourselves to ‘CD only’ but defined a large number of concepts. In addition, we provide guidance to the scientific and clinical community as to which terms should be used and which should be abandoned. Overall, we evaluated more than 300 papers in detail and all authors participated in the discussion leading to consensus definitions. (...) Our research team was multidisciplinary and was composed of specialists from gastroenterology, pathology, paediatrics, neurology and dermatology. (...) Gluten-related disorders. Gluten-related disorders is a term used to describe all conditions related to gluten. We recommend that this term is used to describe all conditions related to gluten. This may include disorders such as gluten ataxia, DH, non-coeliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) and CD (...) Non-coeliac gluten sensitivity. The term NCGS relates to one or more of a variety of immunological, morphological or symptomatic manifestations that are precipitated by the ingestion of gluten in people in whom CD has been excluded. NCGS is a condition in which gluten ingestion leads to morphological or symptomatic manifestations despite the absence of CD.172e176 As opposed to CD, NCGS may show signs of an activated innate immune response but without the enteropathy, elevations in tTG, EMA or DGP antibodies, and increased mucosal permeability characteristic of CD.173 Recently, in a double-blind randomised trial, Biesiekierski et al showed that patients with NCGS truly develop symptoms when eating gluten.156 It is unclear at this time what components of grains trigger symptoms in people with NCGS and whether some populations of patients with NCGS have subtle small intestinal morphological changes. While there is currently no standard diagnostic approach to NCGS, systematic evaluation should be conducted, including exclusion of CD and other inflammatory disorders.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have opened a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#BallenaBlanca.E2.80.8E_and_some_gluten_POV-pushing.2C_in_my_view Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Less is more here. People now think you are pushing your personal POV and it is distracting from what is now important from recent systemic reviews. Remember this is an encyclopedia of accepted knowledge and not what we would like to publish as new findings. Jrfw51 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jrfw51. I fear that this was an unavoidable situation. When speaking about gluten, before or after, tensions are created, although that is accepted and recognized knowledge. I hope that by providing information get to understand that it is not my POV, as I made here.

Thank you very much again for your help, your kindness and your work.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit war notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fibromyalgia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have not started a edit warring. Jytdog has made three reversions of my edits, although I accepted most of his proposals, as I explained on talk page.

• My firs edit on 19 October 2015 Revision as of 19:26, 19 October 2015 (→‎Cause: Non-coeliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) may be an underlying cause of fibromyalgia symptoms. Source: Fibromyalgia and nutrition: what news? Clin Exp Rheumatol. Rossi et. al 2015 Jan-Feb;33(1 Suppl 88):S117-25.)
• First reversion, by Jytdog: Revision as of 09:51, 6 April 2016 Jytdog (→‎Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: simplify)
• My edits, adding one source and a new section about general nutritional interventions, with more information: [6]
• Second reversion, by Jytdog: Revision as of 19:13, 6 April 2016 Jytdog (WP:UNDUE and repetitive. Bring to talk.)
• In this edit, I accept most of the changes made by Jytdog and leave message on the talk page (this is not a "reversion"): Revision as of 22:39, 6 April 2016 BallenaBlanca (Diet section. Adjusted text to the source. See talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fibromyalgia&action=history) My message: [7]
• And third reversion by Jytdog Latest revision as of 23:05, 6 April 2016 Jytdog (Undid revision 713980785 by BallenaBlanca (talk) stop edit warring)

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It might help to identify the type of research for each citation

I try to make a habit of identifying the type and quality of each reference, especially when addressing NPOV or MEDRS concerns. For medical citations, I at minimum try to differentiate reviews from research reports. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz.

Let's see if I'm understanding. Sorry, English is not my native language. You mean that I identify whether it is a secondary or primary source? I never use primary sources they are always review articles. You mean that it would be good that I specify the type of source I used, for example in NCGS?

Thank you very much for your help.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's use of "primary", "secondary", "tertiary", and "third-party" are rather non-standard; but I try to identify them. In the case of medical citations, I find it more important to identify the types that MEDRS identifies: primary sources like research reports; secondary sources like literature reviews, systematic reviews, medical guidelines, and position statements. For the primary sources, I find that it is very helpful identifying if a citation is preliminary study, a metastudy, or a large-scale study. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I understand.

In my last editions (from a few months ago) I started to identify the type of source (Review). For example, all sources I have used in CD page include the type. I will review previous editions, to add it.

Thank you very much for your help!

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help! --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Pharmacology stuff

Hi Bellena. I noticed that you were doing some cleanup, removing primary-sourced based content from pharmacology sections, and getting reverted. This is a delicate topic. Folks from WP:PHARM feel very strongly that using primary sources solely for PK information like receptor binding is acceptable, since receptor binding is always based on in vitro (sometimes animal) work and the data is right there in the primary sources.

The compromise that WP:MED and WP:PHARM have worked out is that this is fine, as long as the pharmacology sections don't go beyond simply reporting binding affinities and actually make health claims based on those primary sources. So something like: "Drug X binds to receptor Y with Z affinity" sourced to a primary source is fine, but "Drug X binds to receptor Y with Z affinity and that is why it is effective to treat disease A" or "Drug X binds to receptor Y with Z affinity and that is why it is has side effect B" sourced to a primary source, is not OK. Everybody agrees with this, pretty much.

If you find a secondary source that can replace a primary source in the pharmacology section, that is great - nobody will disagree and pretty much everybody will think it is better. I rarely do that, as I don't care much about receptor binding, so I don't spend time on it. But please don't delete Pk sections based on primary sources. It is OK to delete health claim bits from them, though.

Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, thank you very much for your kindness, you have explained it very well. I understand. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Blanking MEDR citations

I would like to discuss this edit with you where you removed much content. I am not exactly sure what you meant in your edit summary. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your kind, courteous and patient response is greatly appreciated. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Appreciation for your editing

I hope you forgive me if I assume some things about you and your editing that may or may not be true. Your editing experience reminds me so much of mine, that I thought I would contact you to offer my support and admiration of your tenacity for what you have contributed to the encyclopedia so far. It is my opinion (POV) that you could have been treated with more respect and appreciation for what you have contributed along with the recognition that learning all those "WP" guidelines and policies is not something anyone, including me, can grasp overnight.

You are not a newbie. You have been editing for a while now. I think I can help you get through the learning curve faster and help you become more productive in you editing by offering to help you utilize some of the editing tools that Wikipedia has. For example, if you visit this website, and you enter the doi of an article, you will get a wiki-coded reference that is immediately available to copy and paste (I know this blasphemy, but people do it all the time) into an article that supports the content. Please forgive me if you were already aware of this tool. These are the kinds of things I might be able to help you with. Let me know and if you are not interested and I will back off. The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)