User talk:Iamjackssenseof

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!


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. I noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles, such as your edits to the article Telomere; it's great to have a new 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 require recent secondary sources to support information; their 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.
 * The Wikipedia community includes 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, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them 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 questions. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Zefr (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Telomere, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''See WP:CITEWATCH for the list of dubious journals. This revert is justified because the statement is conjecture, and the sources are primary research. We use WP:MEDRS reviews for the encyclopedia's medical content.'' Zefr (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information. I was struggling a bit to understand why you reverted the edits but after having read the information you provided I see that your reversions were reasonable. I still disagree with the offtopic comments, but I definitely understand why primary sources are not preferable. The review I listed as a source was excellent though. It is an extensive review of data on psychological stress and the relationship between vagal tone, inflammation, and telomere length/cellular senescence. It is currently the only review that has investigated these relationships at such depth. On the article page it says it had four reviewers, some of which are experts in the field of vagal tone (including the editor) and one of which works at the National Institute on Aging, part of National Institutes of Health (NIH). Thus, removal of the last point on Psychoneuroimmunology under relationship with Cellular senescence was, on the basis of the quality of the evidence provided, unfounded. WP:CITEWATCH says to evaluate Frontiers articles on a case by case basis. I do get that it wasn't a MEDLINE review, but there was nothing wrong with the quality of the evidence. Iamjackssenseof (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I believe you are referring to this article which, although discussing many potential mechanisms of normal and disease function under preliminary research, is highly speculative from a systems perspective. Its conclusion plainly shows that the field is in the early stages of discovery, i.e., many years from understanding mechanisms sufficiently to ascribe disease risk or provide proof of telomere involvement beyond a correlation. Overall, the article is poorly sourced by MEDRS reviews. I felt that this review is more background for the specialist than it is a general source for the common encyclopedia user; see WP:MEDMOS - audience. Zefr (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)