Talk:Endothelin 1

"Endothelial cells" vs. "endothelin-1"
Benbest had it right. The sources in question discuss both "endothelial cells" and "endothelin-1": Please read the sources more carefully before jumping to conclusions. Both are review articles and both are relevant to the subject of this article. Boghog (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Endothelin-1 (ET-1) is a powerful endothelial-derived vasoconstrictor that has been implicated in the development of hypertension, insulin resistance and heart disease.
 * , Expression of ET-1 in vascular endothelial cells increases with age in sedentary healthy men.
 * When you find the time to read those two sources more carefully, you'll see that PMID 22902187 cites only 5 reports on ET-1, all of them from lab research and none within the past 9 years. PMID 19723776 cites only 2 lab research reports, both > 11 years old. WP:MEDDATE. Conclusion: neither source is a good up-to-date review, and neither advances understanding of endothelin functions beyond what is already stated by more thorough reviews in the Endothelin article. --Zefr (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC).
 * Why did you not state that from the beginning? Both of your edit summaries were very miss-leading and clearly implied that you had not read the sources either. Boghog (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Background of above discussion
On 31 March 2020 I added the text below to the Endothelin-1 page:
 * Elevated endothelium-1 interferes with insulin signaling, impairing glucose uptake in human skeletal muscle. Elevated endothelin-1 is associated with endothelial dysfunction. Endothelin-1 increases with age in vascular endothelial cells of healthy sedentary men.

On 31 March 2020  deleted my addition claiming it was not based on review articles, indicating that he had not read the articles (as  noted). I reverted his reversion (something I rarely do).

On 31 March 2020 reverted my reversion saying I was "confusing 'endothelial cells' with 'endothelin'", based on my typo "endothelium-1" when I meant "endothelin-1" &mdash; indicating again that he had not read the articles (as  noted). He warned me against engaging in a revert war &mdash; while nonetheless engaging in a revert war himself. I did not revert further but attempted to engage in reasoning on a talk page:
 * Your content and choice of sources are off topic. There are several reviews on endothelin (not about endothelium). --Zefr (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are confusing my mis-spelling with being off-topic and you are not reading the papers I cited to verify that the subject of those papers included discussion about endothelin-1. It is incorrect to conclude that the paper titled "Endothelial function and the regulation of muscle protein anabolism in older adult" does not included the information about endothelin-1 that I described. You could verify this by reading the paper rather than just looking at the title. For the other paper, in the paragraph before Protection from adverse effects of risk factors the Seals, et al paper states "Expression of ET‐1 in vascular endothelial cells increases with age in sedentary healthy men (Donato et al. 2009)." where ET-1 is abbreviated from endothelin-1 at the top of that paragraph. Please revert your revert (with the spelling correction, of course). --Ben Best:Talk 19:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

As indicated above, finally did get around to reading the papers, and now manufacturing a third reason why my additions to the page should not be included. Unfortunately, there are too many such editors of Wikipedia who destroy rather than create, and who will never admit to being wrong, and who are therefore useless to attempt to reason with on a talk page. --Ben Best:Talk 14:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As you have a habit of deleting other editors posts on your talk page, I propose to make this your de facto user talk page so that we can start a discussion. I have for a long time have been concerned about your inadequate edit summaries that clearly demonstrate a shoot first and ask questions later attitude that violates the assume good faith guideline.  If the only problem was the date of sources, why don't you update the sources rather than delete the entire contribution?  You are driving away both new and experienced editors. Boghog (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)