Jump to content

User talk:Robertpedley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Hello, Robertpedley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then type {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to visit the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).


Again, welcome!  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove content from Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

[edit]

Hi.

Please do not remove content that are source in foreign language. Your edit in Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa page removed a well and reliable source in Portuguese language claiming that " Removed ... the cited ref does not support text in this section." which is not true.

Here is the exactly part to support the sentence that you removed: “Mesmo sem receber pedido de profissionais, o Brasil já fez doações aos três países mais afetados. A OMS sabe disso, porque o transporte desse material teve de contar com os caminhões das Nações Unidas. Doamos quatro kits para a Guiné e cinco para Serra Leoa. E há cinco para a Libéria aguardando que as Nações Unidas indiquem como será feito o transporte por seus caminhões. Cada kit desses atende até 500 pessoas por três meses. Eles têm material médico e equipamentos, soro, luvas e gorros”. [1]

So, please, if you do not understand 100% a foreign source do not remove it. Thank you. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 12:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Carlosguitar, apologies. Not sure how I missed that - maybe I clicked on the wrong link. Would you like to add the value of the donation as well? Best, Bob.

WP:REFPUNC

[edit]

In Wikipedia, commas go before references (it's the second time I've fixed this. See WP:REFPUNC or compare to other articles, especially featured articles.) Art LaPella (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as per wp im notifying you

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

this is to inform you

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

to inform you

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzie10aaaa (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 7 January

[edit]

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

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) 00:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning "Controversy" deletion

[edit]

This concerns the deletion of the entire edit titled "Controversy" of 7Jan14 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aethlon_Medical .


I am new at this and apologize for not knowing all the posting guidelines. However, the complete removal of this section based on it's not being "encyclopedic" seems a bit odd. The removed section quoted and referenced original/archival material (medical articles) usually considered primary sources of information. You may not have a strong science background, but this is usually considered the gold standard of information. "References" which refer to these primary sources, or references that reference other secondary sources are usually considered to have less weight in a discussion of a technical topic. Your seemingly arbitrary removal of the primary information in favor of selected secondary, even company press releases, has the disturbing ring of a less than neutral interest. The enthusiasm of these secondary sources, while "good intentioned", range from being scientifically misleading to being absolutely wrong. Perhaps some should be included since they exist. But including them without some guidance to their accuracy or relevance, seems to me to be a disservice to the casual reader. I would hope that wikipedia would prefer truth and clarity rather than the mere repetition of published error.


Datapharmir (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Datapharmir: - Yes I had a few of my edits reversed when I was new at this, it's very annoying. I didn't do it lightly, I assure you. There are reams of guidelines in Wikipedia:Content which I have never read, but I'm pretty sure one of the more seasoned editors would have done the same thing sooner or later. As it happens, I've been meaning to have a bash at the Hemopurifier for a while now and you'll note that the Ebola section has now been cut down to what I hope is a pretty basic statement of uncontroversial and relevant fact. You are welcome to update the page or reinstate your material if you disagree (and by all means change the citation) - I won't revert you again. Actually there's no scientific justification for mentioning a single uncontrolled use of the device at all, but it has hit the headlines and someone else would add it back if it were deleted. Robertpedley (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genetic sequencing. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zika

[edit]

Hi Robert! It looks like you were around helping make the Ebola outbreak pages happen . . . we sure could use some help with Zika virus outbreak (2015–present), Zika fever and Zika virus, if you have any spare time, or know someone else who could help! Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisvls: Hi Chris, thanks for the invitation. I don't get so much free time these days, but maybe I'll take a look it. Best, Bob. Robertpedley (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understand that! Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Robertpedley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Africa Ebola virus epidemic

[edit]

Hi this is to inform you that West African Ebola virus epidemic which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing[2] thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

[edit]

Hi Bob! You removed the list 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory, probably by accident. Conker The King (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, that didn't show in the preview. I'll try again!!! Robertpedley (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Coronavirus (Disambiguation) (March 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
Isn't this already covered by the main article?
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Robertpedley! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what is the strategies of the countries and should we make it clear

[edit]

Australia’s is unknown. New Zealand’s is eradication. We’re virtually identical countries, the prime ministers decide. Isn’t that just mental ? We have sustained transmission in Sydney now, 238 not in a cluster but I think we’re going the wrong way. —Almaty (talk)

Consensus

[edit]

Were is the discussion of your verion? It is unclear what references support what text as the refs are at the end of the paragraph. Why was close contact deemphasized? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James Not sure why you've commented here. I'll reply on the talk page. Robertpedley (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion

[edit]

Hey, the bot archived our previous discussion on 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic to archive 31. Since this is basically just a discussion between me and you now I have decided to move it here. If you wish to continue the discussion, just reply here. sam1370 (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was going anywhere.Robertpedley (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I will keep the edit we were discussing in the pandemic page. sam1370 (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snake venom

[edit]

Ha, I was just about to remove a lot of this myself for the same reasons, and edit-conflicted with you. :) Great minds...! (I have no issue with it being removed entirely, but if anyone wants to restore it, this is what I had trimmed it to.) -sche (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeypox

[edit]

Hi Robert

I re-edited the monkeypox section you deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkeypox&oldid=prev&diff=1112140240

The BMJ article shows 75% of participants who were hospitalised were also HiV positive. Nonetheless, I think the point of the edit I submitted was to demonstrate that monkeypox can produce severe symptoms. The descriptive case series published by the BMJ focuses on the severity of cases. The pictures of the lesions reproduced in the article are important for understanding the severity of monkeypox, which is often described as causing moderate symptoms.

If you think that “particularly in HIV-positive people” is unnecessary, please suggest a better edit. There is no need to remove the whole thing. Thanks for your help!

Postconfused (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Postconfused Wiki policies generally discourage drawing conclusions which are not explicitly stated in research papers - 75% is an observation, "particularly " is a conclusion. Checkout WP:OR. But I'm not interested in an edit war, so I'll leave you to it. Bob (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, you are absolutely right, it was poor referencing. But I started that night to add more references to the entry. Briefly, there are many evidence that HIV+ people have contracted monkeypox with severe symptoms. It is just a correlation and researchers are studying if there is also a causal explanation. By next week, I will also add the perspective of HIV Organizations which push for more informative campaigns to empower monkeypox patients. Thank you again for your guidance. Postconfused (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polio

[edit]

Hi, I've reversed your edit because it was inaccurate. There's plenty of evidence that the inactivated virus vaccine works - you can check anty of the other citations in this section. Your citation was looking at a very different scenario for the control of cVDPV which is different from epidemic polio. Bob (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read the referenced review article. In it you will see references to previous reviews in regards wild type polio. Gut immunity is poor with IPV. This is important in choice of vaccines for various settings. Public health vaccine advocates have been known to get this wrong. So probably they should not be relying on Wikipedia. Also see reference to this issue by someone else in the polio article's talk page. Consider this when you reedit the article. "... 2.3. Vaccination with IPV IPV is administered via the intramuscular, subcutaneous, or intradermal route, and contains chemically inactivated poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3. Wild poliovirus strains are included in Salk IPV and Sabin strains in Sabin IPV. IPV induces high levels of neutralizing antibodies in serum and elicits oropharyngeal mucosal immunity but has minimal effect on intestinal immunity in naïve individuals [10], [11], [12]. Vaccination schedules with IPV alone protect recipients from paralysis and reduce transmission of poliovirus through the oral-oral route (nasopharyngeal shedding), but are ineffective at stopping poliovirus transmission through the fecal-oral route, which plays a major role among young children and in settings with suboptimal sanitation [5]. ..." Bcebul (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Bcebul (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SDNONE

[edit]

Please do not add short descriptions of "Wikipedia list article" or "Wikimedia list article", even if suggested in the Android app. "none" is the proper description, per WP:SDNONE. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eejit43 Noted, thank you. Bob (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit more incrementally, and add specific edit summaries

[edit]

It is very difficult for other editors to understand an edit by looking at "diffs" like this in the Pandemic article. Please edit more incrementally (only one small change at a time), and add specific edit summaries, rather than making massive edits. Thanks. —RCraig09 (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Noma (disease), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contagious. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

I noticed you have been editing some health-related articles recently, and I wanted to say that a bunch of us hang out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. You're welcome to join us if that's an area of editing that interests you. It's a good place to ask questions about finding good sources for medical content or writing style. Feel free to put the group's page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polio at FAR

[edit]

I have nominated Polio for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Thanks. I'm hoping to review polio soon, working on Dengue fever at the moment. Bob (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mpox nomination clarification

[edit]

Hi Robert, this was originally written in nomination but i realized post script it might be unfitting. Since you seem to like a good discussion (and are quite knowledgeable) I thought it befitting to move this here to clear things up.

I am not denying the risk posed by Clade 1a or Clade II IN Africa (rated High Risk).

I'm sorry for not clarifying more in the first comment by "non-endemic" i mean Clade IIb. That I responded to the immediate risk of pandemic comment "We do remember the recent global pandemic, right?"by Andrew.

The supposed (Clade IIb) global epidemic/spread risk is according to the WHO rated moderate which is transmitted by "mainly men who have sex with men and spread predominantly through sexual contact"[3](Page 1) This emergency is more of a call to action(§ 85) to developed countries officials and policymakers. Not warn individuals of imminent danger.

As a comparison to COVID-19, mpox (all clades) has the smallpox vaccine COVID-19 did not. The smallpox vaccine which is considered effective towards mpox has at minimum 465,7 million doses around the world ready to go should SHTF. What would be an important stepping stone for Clade 1a/II to become a pandemic is to establish airborne transmission or other highly contagious means. Which there is no high quality evidence as of yet... What makes mpox interesting (and of some concern) is that it has recurring outbreaks. I.e a nice way of mutating like say, SARS.

I'm neutral towards posting, but i would say wait everything is very much subject to change. Again I'm sorry for the possible misinformation that wasn't my intention. Sincerely - Mikal N (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The disease doesn't have to become airborne to become a pandemic. Being an STD is enough as we saw in the case of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. And there's some synergy as HIV/AIDS is still out there and weakens immune systems.
As for the smallpox vaccine, that's not standard now and I'm not sure if I got it as a child. I remember being vaccinated against polio and TB but am not sure about smallpox.
Andrew🐉(talk) 05:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree mpox just being a STI doesn't necessarily mean HIV, because HIV doesn't have a vaccine already developed. The 5-year survival probabilities for patients without HAART with CD4 cell counts 200 to 350 cells per (aquired AIDS) mm³ is 52,7%(page 10 Table 6) and 5% over longer time. (Without HAART is because: Africa where it is a problem.) That is certainly not the case with mpox. Duration of mpox illness is 2 to 4 weeks, not chronic.
That being said the incubation period of mpox is 3–17 days. The transmission period while not demonstrating symptoms is 1-4 days not unlike COVID-19 (4-5 days). The difference lies in the route of transmission and infectivity.
The vaccination time of JYNNEOS (also known as Imvamune and Imvanex.) vaccine is 4 weeks for full immunity (2 doses) so that could certainly hamper the response time (in the case of further mutation). The JYNNEOS vaccine is recommended for high risk individuals in this "epidemic scenario" that being men who have sex with men along with the standard IC (ImmunoCompromised), pregnant etc.
And yes the smallpox vaccine is currently not in wide scale use in any country. Other than for high risk individuals: lab-workers, military stationed in endemic areas of mpox. I agree that mpox may exacerbate the condition of IC individuals, like with HIV/AIDS.
Alot of CDC citations... Hope that doesn't deduct from my reasoning.
Anyway cheers from Norway! Mikal N (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robertpedley&oldid=1240629101"