User talk:Mannan369

Neuroendocrine prostate cancer
On my talk page, you said: "can you explain removing the inclusion of NEPC in the article on Prostate Cancer? I looked at the WP:MEDREV link you attached to your explanation, but the sources I cited included review articles from field leading journals. I can't even think of a better secondary source than Nature Reviews Urology! The article does not mention NEPC at all, which seems like a huge oversight. Is your contention that the science is still out on whether it exists? Finally, couldn't you have at least left the syntax fixes I made to the previous writers work? That paragraph needs editing to flow, and I just blew a lot more time than I intended to add these edits."
 * Thanks for the comment and sorry about reverting your work. In an open project like Wikipedia, this happens to every editor, and takes patience in responding and reworking, so thanks for offering your work. Your edit contained words like "indicates", "is thought", "may", and "it is possible" - which collectively show uncertainty in the CRPC research field and the preliminary nature of this research for its mechanisms. The whole edit impresses as tentative hypotheses, still untested by rigorous clinical research which MEDRS requires. So, on one basis, the edit and sources are too preliminary for an encyclopedia, and on another, are more journal-like in discussion than encyclopedic (WP:NOTJOURNAL, #6,7). The Nature Reviews Urology source, and the others you added, are reviews of conjecture extended from lab research, not definitive clinical reviews, as defined in MEDREV. If you re-read the CRPC section now after this edit, it is based on established facts, rather than speculation from primary research, i.e., it is encyclopedic. Good luck - you can respond here if you wish further discussion. --Zefr (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've run into this problem before where a senior editor acts as a Wikipedia Reverter instead of a Wikipedia Editor, obviously with the best intentions, but definitely choosing the expedient option of reverting rather than reading and editing to make sure the content conforms to their understanding of the subject and Wikipedia rules. The CRPC section currently does not conform to the metrics by which you describe. Lets go over the last paragraph together where I added the sentences on neuroendocrine prostate cancer and see if we can come to a consensus. Currently the paragraph states:
 * "Only a subset of people respond to androgen signaling blocking drugs and certain cells with characteristics resembling stem cells remain unaffected. Therefore, the desire to improve outcome of people with CRPC has resulted in the claims of increasing doses further or combination therapy with synergistic androgen signaling blocking agents. But even these combination will not affect stem-like cells that do not exhibit androgen signaling. It is possible that for further advances, a combination of androgen signaling blocking agent with stem-like cell directed differentiation therapy drug would prove ideal. "
 * Ignoring the deficiencies in language and syntax, the paragraph starts with the assertion that "certain cells with characteristics resembling stem cells" do not respond to androgen targeted therapies, but cites no "definitive clinical reviews", which you've suggested is a requirement for inclusion. The cancer stem cell model outside of hematological cancers is still a source of debate within the field of oncology. However, the articles this previous editor cited (one primary, one secondary) do report strong evidence that these stem-like cells are detectable within tumours in patients after therapeutic challenge. The problem is that we don't have widely employed markers in the clinic for detection of these type of cells to inform decision making. However we do have clinically validated markers for diagnosis of neuroendocrine prostate cancer that would inform oncologists on appropriate therapeutic regimens for this subset of patients. This is the genesis of my proposed edits. The cellular plasticity described by the previous editor is most commonly associated with the emergence of neuroendocrine prostate cancer . Therefore I inserted a sentence describing neuroendocrine prostate cancer, which is shockingly not included in the entire wikipedia article on prostate cancer. Then I included two sentences to explain the mechanisms of emergence for neuroendocrine prostate cancer, with high impact citations from secondary and primary sources (to account for interest from both lay and expert readers). I also made an effort to ensure that my additions flowed well into the final two sentences of the paragraph, where a previous editor conjectures on the possibility of adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapies for patients with stem-like characteristics. I propose we co-edit an addition to that section on neuroendocrine prostate cancer, starting with my proposed edits as a scaffold. What do you say Zefr? Mannan369 (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Proposed:
 * Only a subset of people respond to androgen signaling blocking drugs and certain cells with characteristics resembling stem cells remain unaffected. Therefore, the desire to improve outcomes for CRPC patients has resulted in trials of combination therapies with synergistic androgen signaling blocking agents. But even these combinations will not affect stem-like cells that do not exhibit androgen signaling. Further, a growing body of evidence indicates that robust androgen signalling blockade with multiple agents may promote development of a therapy resistant Neuroendocrine tumor . This process is thought to involve transdifferentiation of prostate adenocarcinoma to a CRPC sub-type devoid of PSA secretion but demonstrating enhanced aggressive features (including epithelial mesenchymal transition)  . Alternatively to a direct transdifferentiation, prostate cancer cells may de-differentiate from adenocarcinoma to a stem-like state when challenged by androgen blockade, then re-differentiate to the aggressive neuroendocrine tumor based on microenvrionmental cues   . It is possible that with further advances, a combination of androgen signaling blocking agent with stem-like cell directed differentiation therapy drug would prove ideal for patients with CRPC.


 * Thanks for the effort and opportunity to discuss, but this is still speculative content based on lab research, in my opinion. Your revised section is overcited (WP:CITEKILL) with no reputable organization position statement or review to synthesize current clinical practice. The content deals more with might be the mechanisms confirmed in the future, but this is WP:CRYSTAL. Also note your punctuation errors where the reference follows the period, WP:REFPUNCT. You'll likely disagree again with my assessment. Gaining consensus is not with one editor, but with many, WP:CON, so I suggest you place a concise revision and your case on the article's talk page. --Zefr (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Zefr, I followed the link to position statement, but it went to page about accounting, and I'm guessing that's not what you meant. There is no standard of care for neuroendocrine prostate cancer currently, but this review substantively covers options for patients with these related morphological presentations. There's a real problem with the text in that section as is, abstractly describing stem-like cell contributions to prostate cancer. Can we agree on that? Please have another look, as you may be conflating my added text with what was there originally. Mannan369 (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Although 5 years out of date (see WP:MEDDATE), that review is better and trustworthy, but does it support what you want to say? The discussion on mediators and mechanisms are, again imo, speculative, based on primary research, and unencyclopedic. Sorry about the misled link on 'position statement', which many medical organizations have, but in Wikipedia, this is called a medical guideline. This is probably a useful discussion for others to be involved, so consider copying it to the PC talk page or WT:MED. Good luck. --Zefr (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (LAPC4) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating LAPC4, Mannan369!

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

"I've added a few more sources."

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

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, Blythwood. I think the article needs tons of expanding to be of greater utility, and I'm hoping the Wiki team can make that happen. Cheers! Mannan369 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Mannan369! Thank you for your contributions. I am Nicnote and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Nicnote •  ask me a question  •  contributions  23:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community


 * Thanks for the very warm welcome, Nicnote! I'll be sure to pose questions if I'm ever feeling uncomfortable with how to proceed. Mannan369 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating a Page for VCaP Cells
I'm going to attempt to create my first page with something easy. There isn't a page for VCaP prostate cancer cell lines (and a bunch of other ones that have been around for decades). Lets see how this turns out Mannan369 (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Note on formatting citations
Quick note, that there is a very easy and fast way to do citations, which often also provides a link that allows readers to more easily find the source being cited.

You will notice that when you are in an edit window, that up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a ref like this (I changed the ref tags so it shows):
 * (ref) (/ref)

That takes about 10 seconds. As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time.

The PMID parameter is the one we care about the most.

One thing the autofill doesn't do, is add the PMC field if it is there (PMC is a link to a free fulltext version of the article). you can add that after you insert the citation, or -- while you have the "cite journal" template open --  you can click the "show/hide extra fields" button at the bottom,  and you will see the PMC field on the right, near the bottom. If you add the PMC number there that will be included, like this (again I have changed the ref tags):
 * (ref) (/ref)

The autofill also doesn't add the URL if there is a free fulltext that is not in PMC. You can add that manually too, after you autofill with PMID Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * My God that's a hell of a lot easier. Thank you, whoever you are.
 * :) Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What?! How did I not know about this? If you go to Special:Preferences and search for 'WikiEd' that's a tool that makes the markup a lot easier to read as it is colour coded. SmartSE (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I only learned about it myself a few months ago when Doc James got after me to format my citations better and I complained that it takes too long :) Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mannan369, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Problems with your contributions
Hi. I noticed that nearly all of your contributions have been to add references to recently published papers by one research group, sometimes, such as here without even adding any content. There are two problems with this: first, it gives the appearance that your main interest is in promoting these publications rather than contributing to the wider aims of Wikipedia. It is advised that researchers do not cite their own papers both due to you having a conflict of interest and because it can introduce original research which is prohibited. Even without this, the second problem is that most of the papers are primary pieces of research and for the types of articles you have contributed to, it is much better to cite review papers as this gives readers assurance that the information is reliable. Here for example, the first part is ok, but the second part is not. I will be going through and removing these references where necessary and asking members of the medical Wikikproject to review others as well. Please do not continue to cite primary pieces of research by this group and include other author's work as well. If you have any questions, just reply below. Thank you SmartSE (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just saw this. I'm trying to extend some gene pages with links to our work along with others. Please see the page for Brn3a to see if the edit is more appropriate.


 * I also noticed yesterday that there are no pages for the prostate cancer cell lines VCaP, LAPC4 and 22Rv1. Is there a guide for starting a whole new page?


 * Thanks for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannan369 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying to SmartSe's note. Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this  in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread.  I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages.  That is how we know who said what.  I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.  Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's totally cool. I got a couple computer guys here at the centre teaching me stuff like that all the time. I appreciate the detailed explanation. Mannan369 (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So great to have somebody with expertise interested in building our content.   Please cite only reviews, and please use the most recent in the best quality journal available.  It is a multiple-parameter optimization problem.   If that ref happens to be from your lab, so be it, but citing your own lab should not be a motivation.   You also might want to consider joining WP:MED and/or WP:MCB - those are wikiprojects focused on medicine and molecular & cell biology - or at least adding their talk pages to your watchlist.  Lots of helpful info at each main page too.  :)  Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the reverted pages, and I think I can fix some of this. I was being lazy cause it takes me so long to create that ref thing for each reference, I'm just throwing in one paper that references all the other references. Like for Cancer Stem Cell page, under CD133 I put in "However, the use of this marker has proven controversial as it is an inconsistent marker of CSCs" with only one reference even though the there are at least two other references to that point in the first reference. I should just put all three references? And do they have to be reviews if independent labs are coming to the same conclusion?Mannan369 (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Our mission is to provide the public with "accepted knowledge". (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING, part of WP:NOT, which defines what WP is, and what it is not).   We are an encyclopedia - articles here are not literature reviews themselves.   Because WP is crowdsourced by anonymous editors, the only authorities here are sources.  (really, really different than normal scientific interactions, right?)   Great sources, well summarized, is what we are after -- and most content disputes are caused by people fighting over poor sources.     So our epistemology for science content, is that we look at what recent reviews say.  If they all line up on a given point, great.  If they differ, we reflect that, being careful to give the most WP:WEIGHT (space and emphasis) to what most of them seem to agree on, and less where they disagree.  Where something is certain to be "accepted knowledge" we say it in WP's voice, like a fact.  If things are disputed, we attribute.   This is described in the WP:NPOV policy.   Make sense? Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think, I'm getting the idea a bit better. But not quite sure. I'm guessing from that big scary warning below that multiple independent researchers coming to the same conclusion isn't enough (Brn3a). How would you handle the CD133 CSC marker controversy I mentioned above as an example? The controversy was only tangentially described before my edit yesterday in the whole article, but I'm guessing if I put in three references in article again I might get into more trouble.Mannan369 (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted you so far because you seemed to be just adding refspam. If you are not, feel free to restore. For something like CD133 yes what you proposed is what we do, in the article about cancer stem cells.  That would be a place to talk about it at a high level. There ~should~ be a wikilink there to the CD133 article, and that would be the place to go into detail on the evidence for and against as a biomarker (citing reviews that describe the evidence on both sides... the thing 'not to do, is set up a battle of content based on primary sources.  We actually get people from labs who come here to fight their battles with primary sources. ack. ) Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * i should explain, we use the terminology of historiography here. a "primary source" is a research paper; a "secondary source" is a review; a "tertiary source" is a textbook or another encyclopedia.   We try to avoid edited book chapters but use them sometimes.  Articles should be based on recent reviews in high quality journals. (high quality secondary sources)   We don't use predatory publishers. I tend to avoid Frontiers because so many issues are guest-edited and are push pet projects or minority views. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for a cordial discussion. I think Jytdog has covered most of your questions already! Have you ever seen this before? http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ I point it out because I know how easy it is when conducting research to forget what a minute part of human knowledge you're working on. We're interested in summarising accepted information so thousands of hours of research could be condensed down to a couple of sentences. By providing a good reference, if readers are interested they have the resource available to dig deeper (well at least if they know about Sci-Hub...) and read the primary papers if they want and come to their own conclusions. I hope you find the time to carry on contributing! SmartSE (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)