User talk:Matt Lewis/Archive 1

Alzheimer's
Thanks for your copy edits on the AD page. Garrando is not a native English speaker and does not have the perfect ear for our language. He has contributed a bunch tho, and with your help, we can make the copy valuable to all of our readers. Keep it up! --Chrispounds (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I haven't read it for ages and it is surprising what you notice. I'll go through the whole thing looking for typos etc. My 'big thing' is how well a layman can read the layman-relevant parts of the topic, so I'll probably be re-writing the odd bit too (I've just done a little already - on a part I feel is of primary interest to everyone reading the article). Feel free to correct any mistakes, or argue over words used etc. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was also rewritting the stages part. I had done the predementia and middle stage, but I still have to go with the advanced stage. Right now I don´t have much time, so feel free to begin with it, however I think its priority one to find proper citations (pubmed-abstracts) for any assertion we make. Respective to the layman understanding I believe the most difficult part is pathophisiology. I have asked in the talkpge for somebody to do an easy and understandable summary of that part but nobody has done it yet. Best regards and sorry for my typos mistakes. --Garrondo (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your Prognosis heading - I was searching for that word last night. RE mid-stage aggression, I've thus far found examples as forum-style messages - not ideal for citations unfortunately. I've seen it with my own eyes too, but of course citations don't work like that either. The aggression effects all the people surrounding AD emotionally - as much as the memory lapses in my experience, so I feel it does need explaining that it can occur in the mid stages too. For certain people, it could even occur in what appears an early stage. Many factors clearly make people react individually to AD IMO, but it’s hard to find written evidence that includes enough data (compared symptoms (and lack of symptoms), period since diagnosis etc) – though you do occasionally see the odd caveat around (and at least we have one ourselves now).


 * To be honest, I never feel entirely happy with the stage model every time I read it, but I suppose it helps to give an overall picture. Unfortunately it was used by the NHS as a basis for prescribing Donepezil and other drugs of that type. The UK gov controversially stopped the prescription to less than ‘moderate’ stages, with drug expense and effect factored. My worry that people can make a 'stage' diagnosis based on how people appear to fit in with a simple model – when the symptoms clearly cross over the stages as people deal with them differently both physically and psychologically. As we don't know how and when AD starts (and it has such widely varying lifecycles within the stage model too) it seems too flawed to base such important decisions as saving on the cost of Aricept on. The stage model appears like a simple chronological one – but the world of AD is clearly a lot more complicated than that. If there are considered criticisms out there, they certainly should be covered here IMO.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please answer me in my talk page... I don´t watch every talk page of every editor and I found your answer by chance. I agree that the stage model is not perfect but that happens with any kind of classification based on syntoms as symtoms are quite variable in most diseases. I agree therefore that is quite dangerous to take decisions based on it. However I believe its an interesting model to show the prototypic evolution of the disease. Any model is a simplification of reality and its there precisely where it lays its strongest and weakest points. I´m sure that agression appears also sometimes in the early stage, but its in the break point in the continum between the medium and last stage when its more common, since its usually related to an important decrease in executive functions capacities. I decided to leave it in the last stage but if you find a ref that it says that this symtom is usually categorized in the medium stage feel free to move it. You could probably find something if you look for neuropsychiatry and alzheimer in pubmed.
 * Other thing: What do you mean with IMO? I didn´t understand you.
 * Finally I wanted to tell you that I have proposed a change on the media and famous people section (see talk page) and I wanted your opinion. I don´t like how it is right now one name or title after another. I believe that me approach is far more readeable.
 * --Garrondo (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (please answer in my talkpage). Best regards.


 * Hi Matt, thanks for your suggestion about how to post an article about Cognitive Retention Therapy i have posted it now, would you be able to give me some feedback or opinions on it or help me "spruce it up" a bit? -Chris Ashby | Talk 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I give it a look and maybe help - the problem is I sometimes offer promises I can't keep! There's plenty to do on Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright here is another much more unbiased approach, tell me if you think this is better. Cognitive therapies for dementia -Chris Ashby | Talk 18:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashby82 (talk • contribs)
 * I had a look at them both now - sorry for delay. My WP time's been caught up elsewhere. I've made a few contributions, and have left comments in the Talk pages. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you need to get your user page going. Ideally, declare your interest, as you did on the AD page. Your name will stop being red too! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alzheimer's in the media
I created the subarticle when I deleted the info from main page but now has been proposed for deletion. We have added references to improve it, but a vote opposing would be welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrondo (talk • contribs) 13:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're just working slightly too fast for Wikipedia, Garrondo! I do appreciate your dedication (and the reasons for it)- so hope you don't think I am too critical. Ironically, Ive been caught up in an AfD (Article for Deletion) elsewhere - which is where a lot of my WP time has gone the past few days. They are only up 5 days maximum before a decision is made.


 * People are often occasionally quick to recommend articles for deletion - so I'm sure it will be OK. I'll put my support down to rename and help improve it. Didn't you like the idea of the "Sociological and cultural aspects of Alzheimer's" as per Autism? If you had put Autism being a FA in the new discussion page, I doubt it would be up for deletion! Really we need to build some structure as well as get in the info - it's hard us all working like this though, I know (different countries/work hours/priorities etc - and things can go backwards when others jump in!). It does get slow sometimes, but I think we are on the right track and it will build properly now. I do have the dedication (like yourself), I just have to work out the application part. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AD treatment
Re palliative care - is there some part of AD treatment that is NOT palliative care? If so we should say what. My understanding is that as yet there is no cure.LeadSongDog (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that not calling Caregiving a form of "Treatment" will eventually see the sub-section moved somewhere else. Leave the word "treatment" in and you can word it however accurately you see it (even remove "palliative" entirely - which might not be a bad idea). I'll give it a go now...--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I changed the Treatment section lead too. That's where the palliative care comment belongs.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please visit Talk:Alzheimer's disease. We're discussing a topic you likely will find to be of interest.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - this has to be covered. I'm off out in a bit, but I'll read through it and try and comment. I'll correct your last comment to it, btw - it's got a strikethrough in it that looks like a typo(?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You might be right here
But I'm not seeing it. All of the edits were unsourced (and some were badly written). I can't make heads or tails of what they were doing. Things like messing up the references and making changes that changed the point of the discussion, indicates that this person needs a lot of guidance. This editor needs more than just come to the discussion page, but needs to read a bunch of suggestions about writing here. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree - but we can get a better idea about someone in Talk (or an idea even). I didn't feel I was encouraging a 'troll'. I suspect that some people who don't (and possible can't) sign in, don't actually realise that they can use discussion. Maybe some need encouragement too. The problem with all the WP policy/guidelines (which i'm a fan of) of course is that some people may not have the time to go through them. Editing is clearly the easiest thing to do for some people. I thought some of the edits look they could be well-informed (though I'm no expert on Biochemical characteristics as you know!) - at least we can check up now on what he/she's done. Also- I've always had the idea that actual experts on AD are probably quite scarce - there is always a small chance the IP could be one - just without any idea of (or possibly even much respect of) WP.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely do not think this person is a troll, probably just inexperienced. It read like original research is all.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could point the "compare pages" diff out in Talk in case anyone missed it? There could be a few good things in there people have missed. I briefly looked at a ref (where we had 1% - but I think the ref actually mentioned 10% in some way). He changed it to 5 to 10% if I remember. I can't look at it right now I'm too involved somewhere else!--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi,

I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

US / UK English
Can you explain your revert? The article is currently mostly US English with a handful of UK words here and there. Per WP:ENGVAR, the article should be one or other other. If you have a good case (see the guideline) for it being in UK English (my own flavour), then there are quite a number of words that need to be converted from the US form. Since the article is at FAC, this is something that should be sorted out. Colin°Talk 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You seemed to suggest in your edit note that it has been consciously written in US English, but I've contributed a lot of prose over the past year (over two years in total I should say, if being precise), and it's all been in British/International English. Ironically, it's been left in by the many Americans who contribute to the article (I say ironically as you've said you use British English yourself!). I wasn't aware that it had to be one or the other for FA status (and I'm not a huge fan of FA's, by the way). If anything, it would have to be 'International English' for an issue such as this, surely? A US-specific or US-heavy (in weight terms) article, OK - but Alzheimer's disease? I'd feel extremely cheesed off it it was all made to be uniformly US-English. What's wrong with both? AD is not country-specific after all. Of the two - I would have to favour International English. --19:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)