User talk:BallenaBlanca/2016

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

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 [1] --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: [2] 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: [3] 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

[4] 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)
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.
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)
Medical Content Creator Barnstar
You should have received this award long before now. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about spam

I have noted your comments in your editing summary regarding a reference that I have used being 'spam'. I rarely reference commercial websites but it was the only source, so far, which states that VSL#3 at therapeutic dosages requires a prescription. The review articles that I've read have never provided that fact. Giving the reader information that this probiotic requires a prescription may be important because the product is sold without a prescription at lower dosages. I am uncomfortable thinking that readers may think that they might go out and purchase the product that is commercially available thinking that they are using a product that is effective. The efficacy of the product at lower dosages is not associated at all with any therapeutic effects. What is your opinion? Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 July

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) 00:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed [7] The problem is that this page uses another system for referencing, with the contents at references section, and not in the text of the article. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Stinkfruit

I was looking for someone interested in Morinda citrifolia after I saw this.

This isn't really a source, but it is an educational feature that appears in Sunday comics sections and I feel reasonably confident the information is reliable.

And yet "Stinkfruit" appears nowhere on Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This wasn't about your edits, but I was trying to ask people who had an interest in the article what I need to do to include the term "Stinkfruit". I'm pretty sure a comics page educational feature on its own won't be accepted as a source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Blood pressure‎; BallenaBlanca (talk | contribs)‎ (Reverted good faith edit by 155.247.225.148 (talk) Unsourced WP:MEDRS)

Hi, I noticed that you reverted this edit. I wondered why - did you think it was superfluous or excessively detailed or was it the lack of sources? I should make clear this wasn't my edit and while the statement is correct I'm unsure whether it is a useful addition to the article. Interested in your thoughts. Adh (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reach@wikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

DiptanshuTalk 13:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

Why not real?

Why? (Mj thenovelatre (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj thenovelatre (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Beetroot

Hi BallenaBlanca.

I am writing this because writing on the 'beetroot' talk page was unsuccessful. My last undo was changed again because apparently the studies are weak. If a meta-analysis with an impact factor of 5.579 is considered weak then how are other parts of the page with weaker studies allowed to remain? The sentence prior has a weaker impact factor. Not only that, but the 47 studies screened have an average Pedro score of 8.8 out of 10 (39 studies scored a perfect 10) suggesting the studies had high methodological quality.

Can something please be done with that section because not allowing a meta-analysis from a quality journal because it is "weak" would set a standard that would wipe out 99% of sources used to reference wiki statements.

Thank you. Nitrate10 (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Nitrate10

Hello BallenaBlanca,
I have the exact same questions regarding impact factors. I am unfamiliar with the term and how it used to describe a reference. If it's possible, I don't want to waste your time replying to me in a long message but perhaps there is a website where I can learn more about it.
Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

DS Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The text is misplaced. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Why? --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Your edits to chiropractic are continuing to be problematic. You still have not removed the quotes you added. Adding "pseudomedicine" to the first sentence is a clear violation of WP:LEADSENTENCE. I recommend you find another article to edit. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:LEADSENTENCE The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. IMO, that chiropractic is a pseudomedicine is the most important thing that the lay readers need to read. But perhaps is better to let this first paragraph as it was before the edits of today [8]. I will not object to it. I invite you to raise this on the chiropractic talk page and see more opinions.
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding "pseudomedicine" to the first sentence does not tell the reader what chiropractic is. You made another problematic edit. You added text that is misplaced and is also duplication. Late in the lead it says "Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas...". Why are you adding duplication and misplaced text? QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Not "duplicated". "Some of the practices that make up chiropractic are based on beliefs not recognized by mainstream medicine.[7"] is the present. "Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas...". is the origin. In this way, the reader understands that these ideas are maintained today.
But this is not the place to talk. If you want to continue talking, let's do it in the quiropractic talk page. IMO, we should to go back to the previous version of the first paragraph [9]
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 11:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Coins for scale in images

Hi! I see that you created and uploaded File:Amount_of_gluten_that_can_causes_a_reaction.png.

Evite usar objetos como monedas para escala, ya que puede llevar a que personas no familiarizadas con la moneda tengan que buscar o adivinar sus dimensiones, anulando su uso como escala. Por ello, el uso de monedas en fotografías es desaconsejado, ya que pueden mostrar preferencias a nivel geográfico y algunas monedas pueden estar sujetas a derechos de autor.

Por lo tanto, se recomienda que la imagen incluya una regla (ejemplo: en esta fotografía) o incluir una marca de escala mediante un editor de imágenes (como se puede ver en esta foto).

Las unidades del Sistema Internacional de Unidades son las más utilizadas a nivel mundial.

Nevertheless, thank you for uploading that image; having that image on Wikimedia Commons is still much better than having no such image at all!

If you reply, please reply in English if possible. I don't understand much Spanish. The Spanish parts of this message were copied and pasted from a template which I didn't write myself.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the warning, Unforgettableid! What I will do is edit the image and add a ruler, as the example. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That paper

One of the authors has been abusing Wikipedia for citation spamming, hence I checked out dozens of references he added to his work on Wikipedia. The paper you're reverting back in has only two inbound cites and it does not come from a centre noted for this subject - it does not seem to be considered important by people other than the author who's adding it here. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

JzG, thank you very much for the warning, I've seen [10]. No problem, it can be easily replaced by other sources. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Trying to help

I've left some references for you on the Allicin talk page. I hope they help. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Spam

I am new to Wiki and attempting to get my first article accepted (it is submitted as a draft - Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support). I was dx with pelvic organ prolapse and found very little helpful info. on the web. I received help from the Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support webpage. I just got overzealous when I discovered I could add the link to pertinent pages...of course that looks like spam. Sorry about that. If I just select the MOST pertinent cites could I add it as a source? I am a bit gun shy now. I probably wont do it for a while...just asking. Thank you for your time! - Mary P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbpippen (talk • contribs) 10:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

link removal

hi, I just wanted to know that why the cite was removed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender the link was http://www.wifeknows.com/best-blender-reviews/ . 

As I am new to wiki plz let me know that as what I know that we can not advertise any product but It seemed to me that it is just a guide link . so please help me out.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dell such (talk • contribs) 02:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 October

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) 00:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BallenaBlanca. 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)

Do not cut and paste my comments again

Do you agree not to cut and paste my comments again. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply [11] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 21:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring against consensus?

User:WhatamIdoing,[12] User:Afterwriting,[13], User:The Banner[14] and User:Acohndc[15] disagree with including the "pseudo thing" in the first sentence. I removed it from the first sentence back in December of 2015 in accordance with consensus. Do you agree to stop restoring it to the first sentence against WP:CON? QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I will be happy to answer you if you post it on the chiropractic talk page. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It's already all over the talk page. Start at the top, with Talk:Chiropractic#POV dispute. Between the several relevant sections, I think you'll find some eight or ten thousand words there that address this question. You may also want to spend a little while thinking about the POV expressed in this article. "Alt med" and "pseudoscience" are derogatory terms among WPMED folks (and rightly so), but most of the rest of the world has a different reaction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your explanations, WhatamIdoing. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

DS Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. 

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

This specifically applies to your recent casting WP:ASPERSIONS of editors here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal comments on article Talk pages

are disruptive, and you're very close to going over the line at Talk:Wheat. Remember to WP:FOC. Combined with you WP:CPUSHing on gluten this makes overall for a problematic picture. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Alexbrn, I will not go over the line and I hope other editors that also are habitually very close (for their comments about me) do not either. Thank you very much for your warning.
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 16:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wheat

If there was a barnstar for tenacity you would be getting it from me. Your references are superb. You are doing amazing work on the encyclopedia. Keep up the good work. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC) aka Barbara (WVS)
Bfpage, thank you very much! It's a pleasure talking with you, you're very kind. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BallenaBlanca/2016&oldid=1081372031"