User talk:Jfdwolff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
Contents |
[edit] Link to www.thrombosisadviser.com
Sorry for creating spam (in your opinion), but I think this website is a really good resource for information and several downloadable documents about thrombosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.102.167 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- The aim of Wikipedia is to be self-sufficient with regards to information. If you think the website has useful information, then you are invited to integrate this information into our encyclopedia. Also, it calls itself "a resource for patients and physicians". Wikipedia is not just for patients and physicians - it is for the general readership.
- You are free to discuss the pros and cons of inserting this external link on Talk:Thrombosis. I was my view that it was not a suitable link as per WP:MEDMOS and WP:EL. JFW | T@lk 16:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
@Jfdwolff: What do you think about a link to this video? It shows very nicely what venous thromboembolism means! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.197.191 (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I say upload it to Wikipedia, after obtaining the rights of course. We shouldn't need to link to outside sources to provide information. That is the whole point of Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] References for Barley and rye
"Barley and rye also induce symptoms of coeliac disease.[18] A small minority of coeliac patients also react to oats.[19][20] It is most probable that oats produce symptoms due to cross contamination with other grains in the fields or in the distribution channels.[3]"
The RTF (18) is applicable but the original references are very old.
Q J Med. 1978 Jan;47(185):101-110. The role of various cereals in coeliac disease. Anand BS, Piris J, Truelove SC.
It is well established that the consumption of wheat gluten will produce the characteristic mucosal lesion of coeliac disease in subjects who are predisposed to it. The role of other cereals in the pathogenesis of this disease is less certain. In the present study, four different cereals (rye, barley, maize and rice) have been tested by feeding them to volunteer coeliac subjects who had shown good mucosal recovery on a gluten free diet and assessing the effect by serial jejunal biopsy. The biopsy specimens obtained before and after challenge were compared in terms of histology and disaccharidase activity. The results indicate that rye and barley are harmful but that maize and rice are harmless. [Note there is no indication of purity to remove contaminants]
This is the only reference that looks at the clinical pathology. The other two references given (that were reverted were for the followup studies on oats in children and adults, the were both clinical).Pdeitiker (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- The two references you added were most decidedly not clinical, in the sense that they did not investigate the response to barley and rye exposure in coeliacs on either symptoms (diarrhoea, tiredness) or villous atrophy. The 1978 study looks interesting, but I agree that it is too old to make any recommendation on. I will instead link to the AGA gluten free diet guidelines. JFW | T@lk 08:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you are confusing two issues. 1. I added two references that as you say were not clinical. 2. I added a sentence following the sentence that discussed oat sensitivity in coeliacs and its two references. That sentence that was simultaneously reverted had two references.
However, most children and adults responded well to a diet supplemented with oats.[1][2]
There were two references for the adult study, I selected the wrong reference, there is a reference for the clinical study also.
- I am not confusing two issues at all. I am finally getting rid of some content that has bothered me endlessly for the last few months.
- As I have explained in more detail on Talk:Coeliac disease, we need to reflect current scientific consensus in Wikipedia articles. The article wasn't doing that. It was second-guessing the current consensus on the basis of some studies. This creates immense confusion and doesn't help the casual reader of this article.
- Can we discuss this further on Talk:Coeliac disease and not be holding a discussion in different areas simultaneously? JFW | T@lk 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cool tool
I asked Franamax to make a tool here, and this is what s/he came up with. Cool eh? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I know all too well which articles I have edited heavily but are nowhere close to GAC or FAC. The most important one is obesity, where I've been praying for some help from an epidemiologist and a social scientist. Clearly, those people are as rare as hen's teeth on Wikipedia. I think the "medical" side of that article is not all that bad.
- Otherwise I'm gradually pushing some of my old friends to GAC. I haven't made up my mind what to do next. I'd love to do cholesterol embolism, but the literature is thin, there are no images and I have little professional experience with it (a single case, to be exact, diagnosed by someone else). JFW | T@lk 09:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Attention, please!
Hi!
I'm contacting you as I was greatly alarmed to see the state in which articles related to the lymphatic system are in:
- "The concave side of the lymph node is called the hilum. The artery and vein attach at the hilum and allow blood to enter and leave the organ, respectively."-- sentence from the article on lymph node.
- The article "lymph" simply redirects to lymphatic system.
- There's no template, figure or text depicting the path the lymph takes from the interstitial fluid to one or more lymph nodes to a vein.
I'll try on my part to rectify expand the lymphatic system articles, but I might be very slow as compared to the degree of effort required, and additionally, my precise knowledge of the terminology involved (though I possess the right concepts) might prove to be insufficient.
Since, I didn't know who to turn to, I let you know about this. I don't know if it would be possible to make the lymphatic system and related article the collaboration of the week on an "emergency basis".
PS: A few of the glaring anomalies might be rectified by me by the time you try to verify them. And, please do go through the Polyclonal response article if and when you find time. ;)
Bye. Take care.
—KetanPanchaltaLK 18:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Symonds
As you may have spotted, I've finally got round to working on Charles Symonds today. Could you review the medical aspects of what I've added? as my knowledge of medicine is as limited as your military knowledge. Info on his study Clinical and Statistical Study of Neurosis Precipitated by Flying Duties (with Denis Williams) and the "Raymond Longacre award for scientific contribution to aviation medicine" would probably help the article if you can trace anything. I've a little more to add, but hope to finish it tomorrow, and we can think about putting it up for DYK, I must have expanded five times from your original stub. David Underdown (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm done I think. In my trawl through The Times archive I found a letter (from someone else) mentioning Symonds's contribtion to the Lancet January 6 1962 on the long term effects of concussion, which may be worth tracing. I've made a couple fo assumptions, that the Harveian oration at the RCp is named after william Harvey, and that the Radcliffe travelling fellowship is named after John Radcliffe (English physician) and that the Sir Arthur Sims who we have listed only as a cricketer is nevertheless one and the same with the Sir Arthur Sims who foudned the travelling professorship which Symonds was awarded for 1953, all of which would stand confirmation. David Underdown (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well an Arthur Sims was awarded a knightood for "services to medicine and education in the British Commonwealth" in 1950 - I'm still assuming that they are one and the same, so I've added that detail to our Arthur Sims article. i'm going to be away for a few days now, User:Andrew nixon is into obscure cricketers, so he may be able to track down more info, and confirm the connection. David Underdown (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AF
Greetings!
Just so there's no misunderstanding, in the atrial fibrillation article the sentence that you deleted in the Classification section regarding prognosis was not my contribution. It might have appeared to be because of a quirk in the Wikipedia software. I had only deleted the bullet symbol (asterisk) in the LAF paragraph. What the Wiki software then did was delete the rest of the paragraph then add it back so that it appeared that I had just added it to the article. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Medicine Collaboration of the Forthnight
NCurse work 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA for Blood Donation
User:Snowmanradio has given me a lot of assistance in tidying up this article. Since you're the original reviewer, my understanding is that you get to make the call on when it passes. My goal was to get it approved by the 14th, but if it's not ready, so be it. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see that you are editing again, I think that the person who started the GA review should also close it. Snowman (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, snatching a few minutes at work and not really having the time to make some further improvements. But I will go along with your views. JFW | T@lk 13:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
