User talk:Jsreznick

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. We have compiled a list of guidance for new editors:


 * 1) Use high quality sources for medical content. This is described at WP:MEDRS. High quality sources include review articles (note this is not the same as peer reviewed), position statements from national and internationally recognized bodies (think CDC, WHO, NICE, FDA, etc), and major medical textbooks. Lower quality sources may be removed.
 * 2) References go after not before punctuation (see WP:MOS)
 * 3) We use very few capital letters and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
 * 4) Do not use the url from the inside net of your university library. The rest of the world cannot see it.
 * 5) If you use textbooks we need page numbers.
 * 6) Please format your references as explained at WP:MEDHOW or like the ones already in the article. This is simple once you get the PMID / ISBN.
 * 7) Every sentence can be referenced. We reference more densely than other sources.
 * 8) Never "copy and paste" from sources. We run copy and paste detection software on new edits.
 * 9) Section order typically follows the instructions here at WP:MEDMOS
 * 10) Please talk to us. Wikipedia works by collaboration and this takes place on the talk pages of both articles and user.

Again welcome and thank you for joining us.

P.S. Please share this with fellow new editors.

James Heilman a.k.a User:Doc James MD, CCFP(EM), Wikipedian Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine University of British Columbia

and

The Team at WikiProject Medicine Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest for medical content
Hi Jsreznick. Please have a look at WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine). Thanks and best regards - Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Most importantly is you need to get consensus on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jsreznick - thanks for making the disclosure at Doc James' Talk page. The reason I pointed you to COI (med) is that it warns editors against efforts to use WP to "get the word out" about anything.  We all understand the importance of patient registries, especially for relatively rate and heterogeneous diseases like ALS.  (I have a good friend who works at Prize4Life which has been working on getting drug companies to donate patient-level clinical trial data, which P4L makes available via the PRO-ACT database; P4L is also working on getting access to, and integrating, patient-collected data into PRO-ACT.) So yes we "get it."  As I mentioned, what we are asking you to get grounded in, is the mission of Wikipedia - the sole purpose of Wikipedia is to provide the public with a reliable source of accepted knowledge.  Per WP:SOAPBOX (part of WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a vehicle to "get the word out" about anything - not for companies to get the word out about their products, not for Greenpeace to get the word about about climate change, not for Irom Chanu Sharmila's fiancee to get the word out about her condition or legal issues, and not for you to get the word out about the ALS registry.  All of that editing is promotional, and not allowed here. A lot of people want to use WP that way, but it is not OK. I hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog - Yes that makes sense, and thank you for helping me become more Wikipediant. I have edited my previous text and focused it on simply providing reliable knowledge about what the ALS Registry is rather than attempting to “get the word out”. Please give me more coaching if this doesn’t work. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsreznick (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying! So what you have been doing most recently at the ALS article, is putting Registries into its own section.  The only reason I can think to do that, is to make it more prominent - to catch people's eye - so they see it and sign up.  I cannot think of another reason why Registries should be its own section.   Can you help me see how it is not still "getting the word out"?  (that is a real question - please ask it of yourself, before you answer me).  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk
You much get consensus here. Do not re add the content without getting consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)