Talk:Mucolipidosis type IV

So
So I've rewritten this article and added more info than was there previously. Not being an expert on ML IV, I find some of the proposed theories confusing (though this could be due to the review I've read). It seems that some theories suggest that ML IV is due to over-acidification...but many mutants should result in decreased acidification. Other theories argue that dysfunction is because of altered calcium handling, even though only some mutations seem to alter TRPML1's channel activity. In all, either I'm not getting something or the theories are very lacking (or a bit of both). So, if anyone reading this has a firmer grasp of what exactly is going on with ML IV please feel very encouraged to edit the article...inquiring minds want to know. --Dpryan 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing wikipedia Pages
I am wondering why my work on the MLIV page was removed. I don't think there is anybody in the world who knows more than me on the clinical or research aspects of this disease. I think it is very nice of people to contribute stuff but it makes me really angry when their contributions are careless and useless to the people who are most interested - In this case patient family members. I was reading the MLIV page in disgust since it was edited in May of 2007. The version that was on before that edit was accurate and probably sufficient to convey the massage for the average reader. Eventually I decided to spend an evening with my children to correct this page. I put in more information just to make it more scientific and removed material that was already disputed by the authors who published it in the first place (some scientists are too ashamed to retract published material when they realized that they made a major mistake). I don't think this kind of material should be in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldine (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me entirely why your edits were reverted. I'll revert the reversion since, given your knowledge of the subject, your edits were a better representation of the literature. --Dpryan (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Several citations had been removed without explanation, so I reverted to prevent any unforseen breaches to the integrity of the article, which is in keeping with MEDMOS. A bot-added edit summary indicated that Goldine had removed references; Goldine provided unclear to no edit summaries. I acted according to what I thought was in the best interest of the article in respect to MEDMOS.-- Rcej (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)