User talk:Jrfw51

Thanks for the help!!

Sehcat
Hi, the article was listed as stub previously. I was just quickly going through many of the medical articles listed as stubs, and upgrading them to start class when they obviously weren't stubs anymore. Feel free to change it to C class if you think that is what it should be (article looks decent at a quick glance). --WS (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

July 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Vitamin D. 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: 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. Alexbrn (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Apologies
Sorry if I was a bit of an arse on the Vitamin D article. We've had some POV-pushers in the past trying to over-promote supplements and this probably has made me prickly, but I see now I was being over-prickly. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of PBC Foundation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PBC Foundation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/PBC Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have asked
An administrator to reopen the merger discussion at the PBC foundation, as it closed quickly, and you were inexperienced at managing that discussion. In the mean time, prepare a "Further reading" of all citations referring to the foundation, and paste it in, here, as a separate Talk section. The citations should all be complete, and in a good WP citation format. Take a day, and after providing that list of sources here, also go to the administrator's Talk page that moderated that merger, and perhaps express in very simple terms, a response to my request to reopen the matter. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please express your opinion at the PBC Foundation Talk section created for the merger discussion. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Feel free to express yourself at Doc James web page, explaining again that you are not a staffer at the Fndn. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

PBC Foundation
Hi Jrfw51. I want to first thank you for generating content on that foundation in WP. We didn't have anything before. Now we do.

I know it isn't in the form you wanted, of a stand alone article, and it being in an article called something that they are advocating against might seem... ironic (?), but there is content on them now. So thanks for that.

I also wanted to drop you a note to say that I am sorry you are unhappy with the outcome of the AfD, and to tell you (if you can hear me) that all the drama being generated around this, is really un-Wikipedian, and let you know how this ~should~ be unfolding. Like I said, I hope you can hear this.

Big picture -- behind the scenes, this place runs on consensus (as in WP:CONSENSUS) of the editing community. Over the years, the community has put in place loads of policies and guideline discussing content, behavior, and processes, that express the enduring consensus of the community. All of them are directed toward generating great content and articles in a calm, reasonable way. That is the heart of this place. Editors that thrive here are sensitive to consensus and to the processes that determine and create it, and deal with each other respectfully, and are focused on building content. Editors who don't last long, blow off consensus and fight and fight for what they want, and cause lots of drama - and drama becomes the focus. It is sad to watch that, but people go down that road.

Applying that to what has gone on here -- the PBC Foundation article was listed at AfD, a discussion happened based on the relevant policies and guidelines: WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ORG, and WP:RS (notability for organizations ultimately depends on how many independent, reliable sources discuss it). An admin closed it per WP:AFD and WP:CLOSE (the latter of which is about looking at policy/guideline based arguments made in a discussion about a specific issue) and determining what the best policy/guideline based answer is to the question. That happened here - that was all sound Wikipedia process unfolding.

Now, people are unhappy with closes all the time. So the community has put in place ways to deal with disputed closes, so that people can calmly work out disputes about them, too. If you read CLOSE you will see a discussion of such disputes and what to do, and ditto if you read WP:AFD you'll find at the end, a description of what to do. The first thing is always to talk with the editor you disagree with - in this case the closer. And as always, the best approach is to talk with - to ask questions and learn, and also say what you think (based on the relevant policies and guidelines, which in this case are WP:CLOSE and WP:AFD (in particular, the WP:CLOSEAFD section). In the discussion with the closer, you don't "re-litigate" the AfD itself, but instead you talk with them about their close.  It is different.   But dialogue based on policies and guidelines is key.  (The best argument to have made at Sandstein's page, btw, would have been to ask him to reopen the discussion to get more input)   If you leave that discussion unsatisfied (and that can happen - closers are human too) there are different fora in Wikipedia to dispute closes.  For AfDs, it is WP:Deletion review.  You can list the article there, and ask for the close to be reviewed.

In my view, the close was fine and a deletion review would fail, because the close was good (there was a clear consensus based on the policies and guidelines - in other words, the commenters there and the closer didn't see that there are sufficient independent sources to support an article about PBC Foundation at this time) (please do see WP:Golden rule (which is a nice summary of NOTABILITY, created with some gentle humor, because people get so emotional about deletions)  There may well be enough independent, reliable eventually - just not now.)  As I mentioned above, the only possible flaw with the close, is that the consensus would have been more clear had more people commented; but that is not a super strong argument, as I don't think the outcome would have been different had more people commented.

So the two Wikipedian ways to deal with the close of the AfD would be, now that the discussion with the closer has happened: a) go to deletion review and use the community-mandated process to overturn the close/have the AfD re-opened (and again, your strongest argument would be that there were too few comments, and it should be re-opened to get more feedback), or b) abide by the close and deal with the content where it stands now, in the Primary biliary cirrhosis‎ article. If you can expand it with independent, reliable sources, it can naturally be WP:SPLIT back out, with consensus of the community. There is no need for high emotion, ever, in Wikipedia.

Anyway, like I said, I hope you can hear that. If you want to discuss any of that, great. If not, I'll just wish good luck to you! Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy
Please read WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY each of which is Wikipedia policy. Content you added here contained blatantly promotional, unsourced content. I removed it:
 * here
 * here, and
 * here

Please stop doing that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - I cut and pasted the comment below that was left at my Talk page Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your aggressiveness to me. It is hard to write on these patient support groups without using their sources.  Yes that will often seem to be advocacy. Jrfw51 (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not aggression. Please don't take anything here as personal and please learn from what happens.  Each of us is responsible to edit per Wikipedia's content policies - please don't add unsourced, promotional content to Wikipedia.  It harms the integrity of the encyclopedia, and it doesn't matter if editors do that because they are being paid by a company or because they are passionate about something.  Since there is no mandatory peer review here - since editors can directly create articles (avoiding any process that is parallel to submitting a manuscript to a journal  - which the journal might reject out of hand as not ready) and since editors can directly and immediately add content with no prior peer review (as happens after a journal sends a paper out for review) - peer review happens here on the fly, and people correct each other all the time here; that is the essence of Wikipedia.
 * I wrote the extra message above to show you very clearly what the problems were - if you look at the changes I made, none of them are rhetorically or technically difficult, right? They are simply neutral.  I provided you with these diffs - I took time out of my day -  to try to help you.
 * You are a subject matter expert and you could become a very valuable member of the community. But if you are here to advocate, you are what we call WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Edits like the ones you made harm Wikipedia (a small harm, for sure, but harm nonetheless).   WP isn't a blog or a site for advocacy -- it really isn't.  When we write things in WP's voice - especially about health, but about any topic - it really needs to be neutral and well-sourced so that people can rely on it.  The integrity of WP matters - if this place gets too full of promotional editing (and we try all the time to get it out and keep it out), the public will stop trusting WP and all of our efforts to generate great content will have been wasted.  I hope you can see all that.  I really do wish you the best here.  Please do focus on Wikipedia's mission when you edit.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you
great editing, it was so hard to find sources for Idiopathic sclerosing mesenteritis I really appreciate any help, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ...oooh, lol, how did I miss that? Thank you! 86.190.128.65 (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Favor?
Hi - I just found vandalism to Intestinal epithelium that had been there for 5 days. Oy. Would you maybe consider putting that article, and other in the "Gastrointestinal wall" series, on your watchlist? Thanks for considering it. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion welcome here
I know this is out of your field, but as a non-chemist with technical interests, your objectivity and perspective would be welcome (and have been helpful in the past). Please see these two sections, and feel free to comment:  and. This is highly technical stuff. I am seriously looking for an opinion from a non-chemist, better before, better after. Cheers. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit of Proton Pump Inhibitors article
Hi, thank you for your guidance on this edit. So I can understand better, was the offense more related to the unbalanced summarization of the study I gave in the article, or to the citation of the study itself? Or both? I was somewhat confused because you said "systematic reviews and meta-analyses are some of the preferred types of sources" and this appears to be a meta-analysis. Also, the Public Library of Science would seem to fit the guidelines for a source otherwise. However, I can see now that my presentation of the study was unbalanced. Hoping to get the hang of this soon. Thanks again for your help! Schredder93 (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please disregard - I understand now after reviewing the PPI article talk page Schredder93 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Near to my last words on the subject
FYI, Jyt and I have had an interesting closing dialog on the PBCF article fiasco, which might be of interest to you. It is at his Talk page, just look for the large recent blocks of text. No need to add, just to see. Cheers. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Erythroferrone) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Erythroferrone, Jrfw51!

Wikipedia editor Kudpung just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"The template is a red link.What is it exactly?"

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.


 * I've nowikied a transclusion here since it was aiming at a dab page and adding this talk to Category:All disambiguation pages! The original version of the article transcludes which is blue now, so I think whatever the problem was has sorted itself out. --Mirokado (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Cholesterol 7 alpha-hydroxylase
FYI: User talk:BQUB15-Agarno --Neil N  talk to me 00:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Non-celiac gluten sensitivity page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=714305043 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F714305043%7CNon-celiac gluten sensitivity%5D%5D Ask for help])

PBC
I wanted to reach out as I think we could work together to produce a better article, not drowned in technobabble, that is more accessible to lay people.

Also, well done on the new name being in Wiki.

R. CtotheJ (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Drop me an email if you wish and I can suggest changes. I know you are familiar with the process and formatting: between us, I think we can put forward a document that would be helpful and will get through the process.  At least one of the reference links is wrong, for all I don't know how to change it.


 * R.
 * CtotheJ (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I'd retired
Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Dead links
We tend not to remove stuff just because it is dead. I am needing a programmer to update these but having trouble finding one. They have moved all the links on their website. They have given me an excel with the mappings. Do you run bots? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This link does not work in most of the world https://bnf.nice.org.uk/ therefore restored the prior refs. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You will need to get consensus.
 * You are aware of concerns here so no need to repeat them. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
It is clear that you want to re-organize the article. You boldly tried to do that and then were reverted. The correct thing to do now is work it out on the talk page and if that fails, move to other WP:DR mechanisms.

Your recent editing history at Cholecalciferol shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Revert
My mistake, I intended to edit the recurrent pyogenic cholangitis article, not PBC, was going too fast. Thanks. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

GS alert
--RexxS (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited COVID-19 vaccine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MHRA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polymyalgia rheumatica, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ESR and CRP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Vitamin C
COVID-19 meta-analysis content added to the Vitamin C article. Thank you for locating the ref. I expect as more trials are completed and published, there will be subsequent reviews published. I found it interesting (but did not mention) that majority of trials to date were conducted in China or Iran. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Foxes and Fossils (January 4)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Foxes and Fossils and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Foxes and Fossils, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Foxes_and_Fossils Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AngusWOOF&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Foxes_and_Fossils reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

COI concern on Foxes and Fossils

 * , I need to know whether you are associated with the band in any way, like fan club, production group, friends of some of the members, etc. If so, that needs to be declared per WP:COI AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Not at all. A friend (also in the UK and not associated with them) had come across them and recommended them to me. I have then played many of their YouTube videos and told other people about them. I wanted to look up a fact and found they did not have a WP page -- which surprised me. You can see I have edited many other articles (mostly scientific and some others) since 2011. Thanks again for your help here. Jrfw51 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Foxes and Fossils (March 29)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Foxes and Fossils and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Foxes and Fossils, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Foxes_and_Fossils Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CNMall41&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Foxes_and_Fossils reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)