User talk:Medical geneticist

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hi there
Hi there, nice work. Would you be interested in joining the Molecular and Cellular Biology wikiproject? You'd be most welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, still learning how to use all the features, but I'm definitely getting addicted to editing. I went ahead and added my name to the list of the MCB wikiproject. Is that all it takes? Medical geneticist (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, welcome to the project! Something you'll find very useful is this tool. Just put in the PubMed ID number and it spits out a formatted reference. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that will be useful indeed! Medical geneticist (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm so glad to see you're interested in medical genetics. Please let me know if you need any kind of help. NCurse work 04:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ichthyosis
Thanks for your work on the x-linked ichthyosis article. Would you be interested to do any work on any of the other ichtyosiform conditions or is it just x-linked you know about Adam2307 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * XLI is a condition I recently reviewed for a patient I was seeing, so it happened to be fresh in my mind. I wouldn't consider myself an expert on other ichthyosiform conditions but I have a passing knowledge of them.  Is there one in particular that you think needs to be worked on?  Medical geneticist (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah just generally they are all faily new and spruced up by me so any other eyes on the articles would be appreiated :D Adam2307 (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Italics
Hey, thanks for your help on Huntington's disease. I will hopefully be reviewing this article for "good article" candidacy soon, so keep an eye on the talkpage if you want and participate in the noble efforts already made by.

I thought I should point out that HTML is rarely needed on Wikipedia. For italics, all you need to do is  embrace the text in double single quotes  - the wiki turns it into italics for you. Let me know if you need my help with anything else! JFW | T@lk  19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks... still stuck in the 90's I guess :)  I saw that HD was up for good article and thought there were a few rough spots I could contribute to.  I hope it helped, and I'll try to remember the right way to italicize!  Seriously, though, I do appreciate the help.Medical geneticist (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Huntington's disease
I have now made a formal Good Article Candidacy assessment of the Huntington's disease article. Have a look at the talkpage. At first sight I probably appear rather critical, but the points should be relatively easy to address, and I have suggested to that he approach you for any specific queries. This is the bread & butter of your job, isn't it? JFW | T@lk  23:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help out, just don't want to step on anyone's toes. Lee's done a great job so far, and no need to reinvent the wheel.  But if there are areas I can contribute to, I'm definitely willing. I'll look at your comments and see if there are any I can address... Medical geneticist (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * at this point the sound of steel toe-capped boats approached out of the ether(net)... 'Stomp away! I'm not an official genticist - in fact I haven't even stuidied biology except from books, wikipedia,life and integrated science! Yep, I am proud of the article. I've edited it alot, but so have lot's of other's, there's more than enough scope to share. Your edits on medical genetics and desire to edit founder effect tell me this is an article in your area of interest. I've tried to craft it into fast-track entry into genetics for readers, yet allowing for people affected by the condtion reading it to find out about it - but quality and truth of facts are of utmost importance since other resources on the web are possibly biased, too scientific, too basic, worded inappropriately, or more recently just plain commercial. So in short ... please apply your knowledge!LeeVJ (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce idea
On a possibly related note User:NCurse and I have considering the idea of evolving the medical genetics project into a taskforce of genetics and medicine, with the primary focus an open collaboration on articles, on my suggestion, one of each class, i.e.unassessed,stub,start,B,A,GA, which continues until the article reaches the next level or a unsurrmountable obstacle is encountered. Using their combined style guides / ratings and yet provide one central point and debate for medical genetics issues. This would reduce our overheads and let us get down and dirty more effectively. I've got to say he mentioned HD as one of the collaborations and I've always been of the thought that the main article of each project should be FA standard, so thats medical genetics covered! What do you think? LeeVJ (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would definitely be interested in participating. I started my own efforts from the list that is on the Medical Genetics wikiproject page, where it suggests improving the "main articles".  So I tried to spruce up Medical genetics and Aneuploidy.  I would like to try to clean up the Genetic disorders and X-linked entries next. Medical geneticist (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe we could make it a featured article soon. NCurse work 12:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Hi, please don't get me wrong, I am very pleased that you have engaged on the Human genetic variation article. There is a problem with a pov-pushing sockpuppet, but I'm not going to let that affect how we interact on the article. I think you made some good points, but I also think that there is a question of balance. You are probably right that currently the balance is shifted too far towards population genetics. That's a function of the history of the article, it was created as an offshoot of the Race (classification of human beings) article in 2006, with the edit summary "Moved from Race. Article too big. Someone would have to SUMMARIZE this back into that article". At that point it was mainly about the RAO and multiregional hypotheses and population genetics. I'm happy to try and precis the sections on population genetics/anthropology, though I disagree with you that these have no place in the article. For example genetic diversity is different to genetic variability and we're talking diversity (variation within and between populations) and not variability (the tendency to vary), and I think some of what you are saying is about the variability. For example you mention VNTRs, the variability of some of these loci is greater than that of others. We can use the variability of STRs, for example, to measure the genetic variation within or between populations for this type of variable genetic element, indeed some of the papers cited in the article do just that. Certainly some of the variation observed in the population is due to the high variability of some of these units, but what do you want to say about these units? Do you just want a list of the type of genetic elements that can vary? Like mentioning SNPs as having low mutation rates, STRs as having high mutation rates, Alu insertions being a type of transposon, CNVs etc? Don't you just end up with a list then? Some discussion of the types of genetic elements that are variable is required, but the article is about variation and not the variability of those genetic elements that do vary. I'm sorry if I came across as aggressive, if I did my apologies. Let's work together to improve the article. Alun (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. When I made my first comment I didn't realize that I was stepping into a minefield.  I probably should have guessed, given what a hot-button topic race can be.  I made a more extensive reply to your points at the Human genetic variation talk page.  As I said there, I think we probably agree on more than we disagree...  I'd be happy to work with you on the article but since what I propose is a restructuring of the article, I'd rather wait until there is some consensus. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Personalized medicine versus Predictive medicine
Thank you for your comment. Yes, Personalized Medicine may be seen as being an umbrella term that encompasses Predictive Medicine, but Predictive Medicine is (in my opinion) the most important component of Personalized Medicine in terms of it truly being able to decrease the incidence of a significant number of diseases. That is why I mention them separately most times (as we must increase the awareness of Predictive Medicine). No, as of now there is no board certification in Predictive Medicine but there is in Medical Genetics. Unfortunately, Medical Geneticists (MDs board certified in medical geneticists) are actually decreasing in number and it is a dying profession. Predictive Medicine experts, unlike Medical Geneticists, are focused very heavily upon comprehensive genetic analysis as well as making those results actionable in order to empower the physician and the patient over future disease. This is a much different approach than medical geneticists have taken and why the two fields are different, even though some people think they are the same. As of now, most Predictive Medicine physicians (there are only a few of us in the world now but the number is growing quite rapidly) are either Internal Medicine physicians that are also trained in advanced genetic testing methodologies, such as microarray technologies, so that we're able to incorporate this new technology into our practice and actually predict future disease, hence, Predictive Medicine experts. Our predictions for some diseases are accurate and others the predictions are just preliminary, but over time they will significantly increase in accuracy. Thank you again for your comments! (unsigned comment by User:DoctorDNA)

Thanks for your reply... I'd agree that it's unfortunate that fewer MDs are choosing to obtain board certification in Genetics. However, I'm one who is going to try and make sure that the field doesn't die. You're probably right that many of the older generation of medical geneticists who are most comfortable in pediatric genetics will not adapt to the state of the art is it currently exists. Likewise, I'd argue that most Internal Medicine trainees are inadequately trained in genetics to effectively adopt genetic testing, understanding the unique issues that make genetic tests different than other tests. However, the point really isn't who will be practicing "personalized/predictive" medicine but the form the practice will take. Here's my big gripe with this whole development:
 * For risk alleles that are basically Mendelian, high-penetrance, and have big impacts on medical decision-making (like BRCA1/2), one can treat these as "typical" genetic disorders, and a single test gives you actionable information. When I make a prediction of breast cancer risk based on a family history and the results of a BRCA1/2 sequencing test, I have pretty good evidence to back up my risk prediction.
 * However, for the majority of the common risk alleles such as those discovered through GWAS, the actual risk is quite low. We have no idea how the epistatic effects of multiple alleles (both detrimental and protective) act in combination.  Are they additive, synergistic, etc.?  There's very little evidence to support that SNP profiles really tell us anything at all about a person's individual risk, or give us any better advice than "eat a balanced diet, exercise regularly, practice safe sex, and avoid excess".
 * Add on the immense complexity of the entire genome (with all of the novel variants that are going to be found) and I think that we're selling the public something that just doesn't exist in reality yet.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm incredibly excited about the future of genetics in medicine, I'm just a little skeptical about "predictive medicine" as it exists right now. My feeling is that a SNP profile that tells someone they have a 15% "risk" to develop hypertension is basically useless. The prediction is correct whatever the outcome for the patient -- if they develop hypertension, you were "correct", and if they don't develop hypertension, you were also "correct". What I want to see is a good clinical trial that uses risk prediction, followed by a randomized trial of gene-guided intervention (vs. routine preventive care), and demonstrates unequivocal benefit of predictive testing. However, chances are that with such low risk it would be pretty hard to prove for many of the GWAS risk alleles. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. However, stating that certain information is basically "useless" is because you are accepting it as useless, instead of trying to deduce ways to make it useful. Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so. Nothing in medicine is set in stone... just look at the protocol for CPR or beta-blockers for heart failure patients. Yes, information may change drastically in the future based on continued research but can still utilize the tremendous amount of information that we have access to today. --DoctorDNA (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

When I say that a risk prediction is useless, it is because there is currently no foundation in science for such an individual prediction and no evidence for any clinical benefit of interventions prompted by that revelation. The data on genetic risk is founded on population studies that have a legitimate interpretation when applied to populations but dubious value for the individual, and selling the general population on individualized predictions based on population studies seems (to me, at least) to border on misinformation. When the data show otherwise, I'll change my mind.

With regard to a previous version of your response:
 * "We have more than enough right now to start taking action against some of the most horrible diseases to afflict our species." Please feel free to provide specific examples... I truly am interested and my mind could be changed by the evidence.  Show me the data!
 * "Cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's... too many people are diagnosed with these diseases and die from them every single day... millions more will be diagnosed during a "wait and see" approach to applying genetic information to health care instead of a proactive "let's see how we can best utilize the information we have now, to make an impact now". Conquering these diseases... these deadly, vicious diseases... requires new approaches, not standardized caution. These diseases will not wait for us." My response is that we should be every bit as proactive as the evidence supports.  Look, we already have answers to how to prevent a lot of disease: 1. Don't smoke,  2. Don't overindulge on alcohol and other drugs, 3. Practice safe sex, 4. Eat a balanced diet, 5. Exercise more, 6. Get regular check-ups, and 7. Know your family history!  It may sound simplistic but there's evidence to back up these recommendations and they really work!  People just need to be convinced.  Selling the public on genetic determinism, or at least elevating genetic risk factors above other already well-established risk factors, does a dis-service to everyone and will NOT help us conquer disease.  Maybe it will make things worse, we don't know.  Simply saying that we can make an impact with genetic risk prediction now doesn't necessarily make it so.
 * "A revolutionary approach to genetic analysis is coming, and it will emerge from industry as opposed to academia due to academia's pervasive adherence to steadfast caution. The next 18 months will be enlightening in this respect!" I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to although I can imagine it has to do with whole genome sequencing.  Would you care to elaborate?  If the so-called $1000 genome is what you were referring to, I agree that it will be a technological marvel -- however, it will also raise so many more questions that it could have a paralyzing effect until Church's 1000 genomes are finished so that we have a better understanding of the variation we find.  In any case, I'd hazard a guess that anything coming out of industry has a firm foundation in knowledge or technology that comes directly from academia or was largely funded by federal grants.  Yes, it is true that private industry has a way of moving faster than academia but please don't insinuate that somehow "caution" is a negative thing.  Simply having the technology to do something does not mean that it should be done, particularly when patients are involved.  I'm a big believer in pushing research forward and making every effort to move that knowledge into the clinic; I'm also a believer in doing something the right way and not prematurely advancing an agenda for the purpose of financial gain (which is always the bottom line for private enterprise).  Call me a "cautious optimist", or maybe an "optimistic skeptic", but show me the data!  --- Medical geneticist (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No evidence??? What about all the studies that show BRCA1/2 testing decreases mortality, especially the studies are looking at those individuals 10 years out and more. What about the studies showing individuals with the same risk-associated genetic variants have a lower incidence of macular degeneration due to lifestyle modificaitons then those who don't alter their lifestyle? What about studies showing decreases in incidence of Alzheimer's disease with preventive measures? And what about the hundreds of monogenic diseases... do they not cause significant mortality and morbidity, for fetuses, children and adults? Alone they may be rare, but all grouped together they certainly are not. What about studies showing arrhythmia and cardiomyopathies being detected in individuals after screening exams? If Sergei Grinkov had undergone genetic testing, he'd be alive today. Unless you've evaluated ALL of the relevant literature, then putting forth blanket statements that 'nothing beneficial has ever been shown' is just not acceptable in my opinion. The evidence is there, but you'll never see it unless you look. How often do you read the Journal of Genetic Counseling because that publishes excellent studies pertaining to anxiety and adherence issues. And, lastly, those preventive recommendations you put forth are useless... it is common knowledge, especially amongst physicians, that those recommendations go unheeded. Why? Because they are blanket statements told to everyone, and there is nothing personalized about them at all. We're desensitized to them very early on and from then on, they are worthless. Generic blanket statements aimed at preventing disease that is years or decades away are worthless to people and don't speak at all to what drives individuals evolutionarily and psychologically... a need not for the hive to live, but for the individual. The selfish gene doesn't care about anyone except those that are most likely to contain the same genes... his immediate family. Make preventive medicine personalized through genetics and that could be what's necessary to increase adherence as it is then in the best interest of selfishness, as you've applied it directly to the self. But continuing to tell patients generic statements like lose weight, eat right, have protected sex, and don't smoke is just useless rhetoric. The overall strategy must change... we must make this personal... we must appeal to their banal instincts... we must target their self directly... and predictive medicine does this. --DoctorDNA (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we're having this dialog. We probably agree on more than we disagree on -- that genetic testing is a hugely valuable contribution to medicine is without doubt. I order genetic tests almost every time I see a patient in the clinic, and I'm well aware of the morbidity and mortality associated with genetic disease. However, there is a clear distinction between genetic testing for diagnostic purposes versus genetic testing for predictive purposes. There are ample reasons to perform diagnostic testing in someone presenting with a given phenotype, whether they're a child with Down syndrome or an adult with an aortic aneurysm. There are also good reasons to perform predictive testing -- the newborn screen is a great example: Screen everyone for the rare, high penetrance, debilitating, potentially treatable conditions that can be picked up at birth. To me, the key is that picking up these disorders before they manifest is beneficial because we can do something about it that we otherwise wouldn't do. I just don't think that many of the SNP-based risk predictions rise to this level of significance. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In one of my comments above, I wrote specifically about BRCA1/2 testing showing direct benefit in well-studied scenarios. This is clearly an established use of "predictive genetic testing" (although in many cases it's also partially diagnostic when the patient presents with breast cancer), one for which medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and oncologists have developed procedures for utilization.  I have no issues with this example at all, as long as the test is used properly and counseling done with the appropriate caveats.
 * Age-related macular degeneration: I don't doubt the evidence for genetic variants contributing to this condition, given that family history alone increases the risk 2-3 fold. However, it isn't clear how to model the effects of multiple risk SNPs and preventive SNPs in an individual .  So my question still remains:  how does knowing the SNP profile for the risk alleles change anything?  If I had a patient with a family history of ARMD, I'd still tell them not to smoke.
 * Arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, Alzheimer's, Sergei Grinkov's MI, name any disease and there's likely to be a genetic variant involved. Although there is increased relative risk compared to the population, what is the real risk to the patient in terms of absolute risk?  Does it justify taking preventive measures? How aggressive would you be in a patient with a PL(A2) mutation?  Would you recommend routine catheterization?  Here is where the evidence needs to be shown: that making genetic risk prediction combined with preventive care is beneficial in the long run in terms of years of life saved, and justifies the costs ($$$, time, medical resources, psychological effects) of doing so.  I'm absolutely open to the possibility that molecular screening tests could one day be added to a newborn screen or become standard of care, assuming that we can be confident that the benefits outwiegh the risks.  Cystic fibrosis and cardiomyopathy would be good examples.  The penetrance is high, the consequences are horrible, and there are potentially preventive treatments available.  However, once you start talking about the low penetrance risk factors you begin increasing the number needed to treat and exposing people to costs, when the "risk" allele may never have caused them any problems.
 * By the way, when did I make a blanket statement that 'nothing beneficial has ever been shown'???
 * I'm familiar with the genetic counseling literature regarding uptake of predictive genetic testing. I'm unaware of conclusive evidence that genetic tests are better at prompting behavior modifications (please provide PubMed refs if you have them).  However, there's ample evidence that predictive testing for certain conditions increases anxiety (in some cases needlessly).  Interestingly, the European medical community seems to be way ahead in studying these sorts of things.
 * I agree that most people are heedless of advice, and perhaps you're right that some genetic information will be just what is needed to push them in the right direction. However, I think you're also underestimating the possibility that a flood of genetic risk information will ALSO desensitize people (who for the most part won't understand the basics of genes and how they work) by reinforcing the truly ignorant genetic determinism that we all see in the popular media.  If risk prediction were used in a targeted way -- coupled with family history, for example -- you might actually have a more compelling message.

HUntington's Disease
Hello there MG, thought I'd warn you Huntington's Disease is suffering a big major improvement at the moment as part of the MCOTW, it's been knocked into shape by several editors and User:garrondo is going great guns - I've been a bit stuck locating/creating images, just wondered if you wanted to join in the fun - I think we may get the article to GA as part of the collaboration even! Any help or extra opinions greatly appreciated. As a side note I have in the back of my mind that the whole diagnostic testing and social aspects section/s could be moved to a more general article once they are up to scratch - as HD is a test-bed this information will equally apply to other genetically testable dominant disorders to some degree - it's apt we create the draft in the article whilst it's under higher scrutiny. L&there4;V 00:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Renal medullary carcinoma
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. (Specifically, the hook in your article is not specifically referenced as required by the DYK rules.) Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Article assistance
Hello. I have seen your suggestions on the talk page of Human genetic variation. I have reorganized the article and now there is a section "Ancestry and health" that needs help. If you get an opportunity, you may be able to make some improvements to that section. Feel free to rename the section if you wish. --Saul Greenberg (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. At one point I had considered doing a major reorganization but decided I didn't have enough time to make it work.  I'll see if there's anything I can do with your revision.  The article definitely needed help, so thanks! --- Medical geneticist (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

progenitor cells on the science reference desk
Hi MG,

You are right, it was probably my mistake. About few months ago I had a generall discussion on stem cells research with a friend who starts his PhD research with focus on cancer stem cells, and he told me that this treatment is already operational -so either he was wrong or that I didn't understand him well, or that he just fool me. Anyway, kind of embarrassing misatke.--Gilisa (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

HNPCC/Lynch
Thanks for the input on Lynch/HNPCC. A most welcome comment.

Presuming the move request proceeds, would you write the HNPCC-X content? I can do a competent job on the epi side of things for Lynch, and can scrape by on the clinical side - enough to tell folks what to think about (5-FU efficacy in Lynch, was, for example, my addition). The Burn Aspirin data is dramatically changing my thoughts on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetiologic (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content
I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!, history of dermatology, or list of dermatologists pages? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins
Hello, sorry to bother you, wanted to know what you think of this gentleman: in your opinion, are the sections of the books from Richard Dawkins that discuss genetics accurate enough to be considered good popular science (if you have read some of them)? Can I trust what he says on this subject by default unless someone points out a mistake? --Lgriot (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's probably safe to say the Dawkins has as good an understanding of genes and genetics as anyone, so information in his books about genetics is probably correct. I haven't read every one of his books, so take that as a generalization.  Of course, Dawkins has a distinct point of view and approaches evolution with a certain zealotry which is off-putting to some and draws significant criticism from those with a more religious tendency.  He also tends to take a very gene-centered approach to evolution, which some population biologists might argue with.  However, his writings are excellent and fairly approachable and yes, I think you could "trust" the information provided.  --- Medical geneticist (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I really appreciate your taking the time. He does not put me off, all I have read is quite sensible to me, but I have no means to dig into any organism's genes to confirm what I have read. I love the "original replicator" idea - first introduced in chapter 2 of The Selfish Gene. --Lgriot (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

TSS
 Jebus989 ✰ 13:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for full genome sequencing
An article that you have been involved in editing, full genome sequencing, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Estevezj (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Trisomy 8: Query for the German Wikipedia
Hi. I come from the German part of the Wikipedia caused by a possible addition on the article "Trisomy 8", where you have given an information about the high lethality percentage of unborn babies with the triple chromosome in it. This sentence is missing in our article. So I would beg you -speaking for the whole German Wikipedia- to name me the source of this phrase (and -if possible- verify it) so we can add it. Thank you very much for your willingness to help! Mextator (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2012 (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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (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!