User talk:TylerDurden8823/Archive 1

Advice and Touro University California
Hello TylerDurden8823, first I would like to suggest to you to archive portions of your talk page rather than delete comments. For help in learning how to archive your user talk page see WP:Archive.

To continue with the previous conversation that you deleted, the problem with the references in Touro University California is that most of the citations are simple url links. This is not sufficient because websites tend to reorganize their sites periodically and change all the urls creating broken or dead links. For this reason, each citation should have information (author, publisher, date, ect.) such that if the link is broken, the information will be easy to search for. Please read through Referencing for beginners or Citing sources/Example style for how to format refs. As for all the other items that I listed in Touro's GA review and in my previous post that you deleted, I think it would be helpful for you to read through some of the other example Good Articles to give you a sense of what a good article should look like. Good luck. -- Tea with toast  (話)  21:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I still really need more specific advice regarding what is missing other than the references. I'll look at those articles and see what you mean but I did run the citations through that citation machine. I don't know how to change them otherwise. I'll look at the links you sent me to see if that helps. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see the improvements you have made to the page. Since I'm not quite sure how to better communicate to you the further changes that need to be made using other words (especially about the refs), perhaps it would be better if somebody else were to review the article and give you there own tips. You may be able to find someone who can help by making a request on the talk page of Wikiproject Medicine or Wikiproject University. Best of luck! -- Tea with toast  (話)  02:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the lack of response; I've been on vacation recently (I have a tag indicating such on the top of my talk page). I'll be fairly busy over the next few weeks, so I probably won't have the time to review it. It might best to have someone else to review it anyways, since they might have different opinions and advice. Best of luck! -- Tea with toast  (話)  14:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's okay, I saw the banner up top but I also saw that you had responded to other people recently so I figured you were around. I'll see if I can get a fresh editor to give it a look. Thanks for all of your help, you helped me get the article much further along! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
I saw your comment at WT:MED and I recommend putting the article up for WP:PR. It may take a while before someone comments, but it should generate useful feedback. Biosthmors (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference Formatting
Hi TylerDurden - just read your post on my talk page about formatting references. The reflinks tool is awesome, but it doesn't catch everything. Here are a few pointers:
 * For all references, be sure to include  before the inserted citation template, and then close the reference with.
 * Check out the citation templates; there are several for different types of sources. I almost always use either Template:Cite web or Template:Cite news.  If you go to the template pages, you'll see citation templates that you can copy and paste into the page that you're editing, and then fill in the information (url, title, author, etc).  If you're citing a journal, book, encyclopedia, etc. then there are different templates for those, too.  I've added a box below with the links (Citation Style 1 - noticeboard).
 * Here is the cite web template:
 * refToolbar 2.0 I've recently discovered a really convenient way to cite references: on the edit page, if you look to the far right of the edit tool bar, next to the advanced, special characters, and help options, there is a "cite" option. Click it: it will expand a menu bar below and on the left there will be a drop-down menu entitled "templates."  Click it and it'll open up a little page that you can fill the info into.  When you're finished, click "insert," and the reference will be inserted whereever you left your cursor on the edit page.  The only thing is that this cite option isn't always shown next to the help, and I'm not sure why... I've noticed if I reload the edit page it usually shows up. It's a helpful too, though; saves time.
 * Merging references: you can do this by "naming" a reference. Instead of having the typical reference of   you have , where X is the name is the name that you chose for the reference.  Once you have a reference named somewhere (anywhere) in an article, if you want to use the same reference again in that article, all you have to do is type:  , or  . If you want to see an example of this, find a page that has at least one merged reference (multiple citations to the same reference), and open the edit page.  Control F to search for "ref name".
 * refToolbar 2.0 I've recently discovered a really convenient way to cite references: on the edit page, if you look to the far right of the edit tool bar, next to the advanced, special characters, and help options, there is a "cite" option. Click it: it will expand a menu bar below and on the left there will be a drop-down menu entitled "templates."  Click it and it'll open up a little page that you can fill the info into.  When you're finished, click "insert," and the reference will be inserted whereever you left your cursor on the edit page.  The only thing is that this cite option isn't always shown next to the help, and I'm not sure why... I've noticed if I reload the edit page it usually shows up. It's a helpful too, though; saves time.
 * Merging references: you can do this by "naming" a reference. Instead of having the typical reference of   you have , where X is the name is the name that you chose for the reference.  Once you have a reference named somewhere (anywhere) in an article, if you want to use the same reference again in that article, all you have to do is type:  , or  . If you want to see an example of this, find a page that has at least one merged reference (multiple citations to the same reference), and open the edit page.  Control F to search for "ref name".

Rytyho usa (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have responded at the peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla
Not that it matters much, but couldn't isn't an informal contraction. Informal contracts are words, such as "gunna" and "kinda". Just clarifying. Slushy9 (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Contractions are really meant to be used sparingly, if at all, in formal written English. That being said, I see that an "informal contraction" is something else though that isn't what I meant. What I meant is that couldn't is a contraction and is not the most suitable form for formal writing such as in an encyclopedia. Contractions are generally less preferred, if at all, for example in the APA style. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

revert on Joel Weissman
My apologies for this edit, which reverted all of your changes, when the only issue I had was with a source tag in the lead. I had intended to undo only that one change, but had inadvertently removed all of your recent edits. I see that you have reapplied the other changes and apologize for my error. Alansohn (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's okay. I agreed with your edit on the tag part but the rest didn't make sense to me. Glad to hear it was just a misunderstanding, it's all good man. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)== SuggestionBot Suggestions ==== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

AOBOO
Thanks for the note. I put the technical writing tag on the AOBOO article because I think it's somewhat dense with terminology and procedure in places. I think the lead section is ok other than the unexplained "(D.O.)" abbreviation. I would also consider removing acronyms for organizations that aren't referenced later in the article except in the navbox (AOABOS and AOA), as their inclusion creates an expectation that they will appear later and the reader needs to keep them in mind. And I'd recommend explaining terminology in layman's terms within the article instead of relying on wikilinks wherever possible. For example, otolaryngology can be described as the medical specialty covering disorders of the ears, nose and throat (I think). Everybody understands what ears, noses and throats are. More people will know about ophthalmology, but it still might be worth simplifying. A lead like, "The American Osteopathic Boards of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology (AOBOO) is a joint organization that provides certification to doctors who practice osteopathic medicine and specialize in treating disorders of the ear, nose, throat and eyes" is more accessible to the average reader than "in the medical specialties of ophthalmology and otolaryngology to qualified osteopathic (D.O.) ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists." The same sorts of issues exist in the body of the article. And the listing of the CAQ qualifications should be reformatted as prose since there are only two of them. I hope this makes sense and helps improve things. --Batard0 (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done. Just fyi, you can also use wikilink piping to accomplish the goals of making the text more accessible while still providing a link to the corresponding article, for example by typing ear, nose and throat specialist, which appears as ear, nose and throat specialist but links to otolaryngologist. --Batard0 (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, but I feel it's good to provide the explanation alongside the technical term otolaryngologist so people are not unfamiliar with the term. After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a reference and to educate people so they should know that an otolaryngologist is an ears,nose, and throat (ENT) physician. I think it's useful to provide both terms. Glad to hear the article looks better after the adjustments I made. =) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

GAN of interstitial cystitis
Hello there. I saw your nomination of Talk:Interstitial cystitis/GA1, and I opened the review. Thanks for your interest. There appears to be some significant work behind getting the article up to the good article criteria, unfortunately. I left the review open in case you would like to improve the article now. I encourage you to improve it now or later. If you need any help identifying sources, or if you have any other Wikipedia questions in general, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

SOMA page
FYI, I've uploaded the logo for the SOMA article, as well as the new image for the AOA page. Both look pretty good to my eye. Cheers! Rytyho usa (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, both look great! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I also did this to activate doi links. Another cool thing is just typing PMID 12690197 generates an active link like this: PMID 12690197, in case you didn't know. Either one of those two active links will help make things on my end easier. =) Thanks again. I'll look tomorrow. Biosthmors (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Biosthmors (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * PMID 12690197 generates the link. The nowiki things deactivate wiki possibilities. Thus, DVT does not link to DVT, but only shows what one would type in an edit box, whereas DVT works. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. Biosthmors (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work to the article. I'm pretty busy at the moment. How about this: how about we close the review as "not yet", but that we try to get more feedback through a WP:PR to see if there's any other work to do before GA. I could provide feedback at a peer review, we could ask for others' comments at WT:MED, and then you could open another good article nomination when you're confident/others are confident things look good? Thanks for your patience with me too! Biosthmors (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Yep, you should be able to open the peer review now! Best. Biosthmors (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI I posted at WT:MED about your peer review. I recommend two things. 1) Patience, it can take weeks before someone comments (in fact my DVT review was automatically closed, and I had to manually revert that, before I collected any comments). 2) Help out another person or three who works on GA/peer review/FA content with something they would like to see get attention. I think it is best to incorporate oneself into the community of those who try to create GAs, FAs, etc. if one wants to get articles here upgraded in quality. Best wishes! Biosthmors (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI
See here please: User_talk:Quasihuman. I hope you're doing well. Biosthmors (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider also assisting Quasihuman if you find my comments here helpful: Peer review/Interstitial cystitis/archive1. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience! I've been on a bit of a tear at WP:PRV and elsewhere. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see "Tyler" pop up your name when I searched in RX. Did you put in a RX request elsewhere? Biosthmors (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied at WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. And I left a short note on the talk page of the article you've been working on. Thanks for all your edits! Biosthmors (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope my comments are helpful! Biosthmors (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

article
Hi Tyler! Regarding the article you asked me about, unfortunately it looks like my institution doesn't subscribe to that journal. Sorry about that! If you have access to a university library, you could ask them to do an interlibrary loan for you. best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's okay, thank you for trying! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See my talk page ... -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * if you click here you can send me a note with your address, and I'll send you the paper! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

PRV
Have you kindly asked two to three people at WP:PRV yet to help out with bronchitis? I recommend doing so if you haven't already. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Journal Access?
Yes I do. Here's the file. Next time please leave the message in user talk page, NOT in user page. Otherwise people wouldn't know you left a message (hence the long turn around time to get back to you). OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go. Just leave me a message if you need more articles. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have access to that article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I deleted them thinking that you already downloaded them. Which one(s) did you not download yet (I have to reupload them again)? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The link is back up (the second link in this section) <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 19:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my library subscription for this journal is only for articles published in 1998 or later. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 19:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice work - vertigo
Nice work on the vertigo article! Very extensive additions. Monkeyjunky (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! =) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * By the way drop me a note if you need help with access to papers. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

refs
Hi, when refs are in a separate location in the source of a page it is easier to edit, it is a little difficult when the text of a page is mixed with refs,what's your opinion? this is in regard with Bronchitis. Kiatdd (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I mean this edit, did you put the ref back inbetween the source of the page. Kiatdd (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

when the refs are inside the bracket at the bottom of the source of a page, it is kept away from the text, so using this method we separate refs from content. for example if you look at the source of Amblyopia, I mean click on it and then press edit to see the source, you will notice that all the refs are between brackets at the bottom of page. Kiatdd (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to explain that what I was doing in Bronchitis, is based on WP:LDRHOW, it is a method to make editing easier, just to let you know. Thanks. Kiatdd (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll have to talk to someone who knows more about that than I do. The page you referenced looks like the reference section is incorrectly done to me and the Asperger syndrome page is a featured article so I tend to go by an article like that as a model.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Bronchitis
Hey TD, saw your note about bronchitis confusion at Doc's User Talk page. What else can I say other than "I was wrong"! I didn't know enough about the subject to know to tell you to split it up into the subarticles as suggested. But, on the bright side, instead of just one GA bronchitis, you'll end up with three after you add in acute and chronic! Keep up the good work... 03:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

moving this all here
 * It's cool Zad, it was just that when I saw what happened, it was such a dramatic revision that I felt compelled to ask what was happening. I'm not the most experienced wikipedia user and I learn about new policies all the time, so I'm always open to learning about that, but I usually ask for an explanation. I'm not clear on what you mean about 3GAs, are you recommending that I just work on the main article for acute bronchitis, the main article for chronic bronchitis, etc. instead? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, after you catch your breath (HA!), what I mean is: instead of having just one article to nominate as a WP:GOODARTICLE (GA), you'll have three: bronchitis, acute bronchitis, and chronic bronchitis.  I'm recommending that you develop all three!  You've probabaly been pulling the sources you need for all three anyway.  As you get each one to GA status, submit.  Good stuff.  But first you need to finish that discussion at Talk:Bronchitis with Doc and get him to explain how the articles should be laid out.  It sounds like bronchitis will be a very small article, and nearly all the content that's in there now will be pushed down to the 2 subarticles.  That's what it sounds like, but get a clear explanation so that you're not surprised like this again.  You picked a good topic.  Cheers...    03:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Gynecomastia
Hi Doc, I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out with this article. It's coming along nicely and I've been adding reliable secondary sources to it, but I feel like the organization of the article could use improvement and I believe you have more experience than I do in this aspect of improving articles. Please let me know either here or at my talk page if you have any interest in this project. Thanks. Sincerely, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks will take a look. One concern I see is the pictures from the plastic surgeon. The after photos seem to include tanning which is always worrisome. I fear self promotion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Neonatal gynecomastia
My apologies. I scanned the talk page and had checked the BMJ article you had linked. I compared the quote "maternal and placental oestrogen and progesterone" to the diffs and thought you were close. I knew a lot of people who worked in placental physiology, so its the "standard debate" to me. My first read was jaundiced by that first impression.Novangelis (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, if that's what Richie is debating, that's another story although the recent review articles still do not support his stance on this. However, it is difficult to know what he's talking about sometimes given that half the time he's discussing Witch's milk and the other half he's talking about the neonatal gynecomastia aspect of things and I was trying to figure out for a while what he even wanted to change (and his current changes, which I've left alone to prevent edit warring are ones I find unacceptable). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Diving medicine
Hi TylerDurden8823, I see you have made edits to Diving medicine, changing the format. If you think the format should be changed, please make suggestions on the talk page, so that a consistent format can be chosen. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Drew Pinsky & Filmography/Bibliography sections
Hi, Tyler. A belated welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for contacting me. :-)

What you're telling me doesn't jibe with everything I've observed on Wikipedia over the course of the past 8 years. From what I've seen, filmography and published works sections are entirely appropriate to such articles, for reasons that to me, seem obvious, and are found on just about every well-developed BLP article to which those sections apply. I'm surprised to encounter the notion that they're not. Then again, I could be wrong. If you can refer me to some page showing a policy, guideline or community consensus indicating what you assert, or if you could just refer me to some of the other users who have told you this, perhaps we can resolve this. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * One thing I neglected to mention above is that there are not only such sections in BLP articles, but there are entire articles on writers' written works and actors' filmographies all over Wikipedia. Stephen King bibliography and Tom Cruise filmography are two examples. Nightscream (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think Tyler is talking about bios of academics. That is a whole different animal... Whereas each Stephen King book gets a lot of attention and even the more obscure movies are reviewed in at least some reliable sources, academics produce a great many articles in academic journals. Listing all those articles in their bios is something that is not done, nor are there separate list articles for that (with some obvious exceptions for extremely notable scientists, such as Einstein). For scientific articles, it is rare to see another article covering them (as opposed to merely citing them). So the usual practice is to list a researcher's three most-heavily cited articles. Only if there are reliable sources that discuss a certain article in-depth will there be exceptions to this, but as said, that is exceedingly rare (and usually that will be for negative reasons, if an article for some reason caused a scandal). --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! That's very kind of you to say :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Pneumologie
Hi! You was looking for the article 200 Jahre Bronchitis - 1808 bis 2008 : 200 Years of Bronchitis - From 1808 to 2008 any time ago. I have got it now? I need a wikimail to send it to you. Greetings, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Doc Taxon, that's okay, that issue was solved long ago. Thanks for finding it though, I appreciate the effort. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

my comments at WT:MED regarding CoI
Hi,

I figured maybe it was better to talk about this on your talk page, since it is a separate issue from the journal article.

I feel like it's incumbent on us as active editors to hold ourselves to high standards with regards to CoI. Otherwise we don't have the moral high ground when it comes to promotional edits by drug/device companies or other spammers, and that seems like a fairly endemic problem that we need to push back strongly against. FWIW, I don't think I've ever made edits to the articles about institutions where I have a connection for this very reason.

It's clear to me that you are editing in good faith, and without the intent to promote, but the existing research on conflict of interest suggests that one doesn't have to have any specific conscious intent for one's judgement to be swayed.

Anyway, interested in talking about this more, to whatever extent you're comfortable with that. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 05:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry if that came off as accusatory. Been trying to work on tone there, obviously unsuccessfully. Which talk page would be better for you, yours or mine? -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 05:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's all right, apology accepted. It did sound accusatory, especially when discussing COI since that's a pretty heavy topic, but we're cool. Seems like it was just a misunderstanding and we can continue to talk on your talk page.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Million Award!
Congratulations! Congratulations! Many high-traffic, high-importance article like this one have sat in various states of disrepair for way too long. Hopefully this little award lets you know how much I -- and, I assume, others in the community -- appreciate your contributions to rectifying that. Bobnorwal (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you very much. That's very kind of you to say Bob. I appreciate the award :) now time to go work on more articles! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Psoriasis
Would love to help out. Will be most productive if you nominate a specific task or subsections for me to work on. PS have you considered archiving your talk page? --LT910001 (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Psoriasis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Psoriasis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jfdwolff -- 21:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll probably review 1-2 sections/day. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Review done (with credits to the Wikipedia editathon at the Wellcome Library yesterday where I was able to do most of the review). JFW &#124; T@lk  13:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Psoriasis
, sorry for the long delay. Have started editing from today. Will follow your lead on editing; so if you would like to see something changed or disagree with something, please ping me. --LT910001 (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Some nutritious protein to keep you going in your hard labors on the psoriasis article. Kudos!

Lesion ( talk ) 22:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * How did you know I eat kittens? Their innocence sustains me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Top medical editors
Thanks you Jmh, I'm humbled by the award. That's very nice of you to say. I hope I can continue editing like this. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of psoriasis
The article psoriasis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Article for comments about the article. Well done! No mean feat - this is a huge topic. JFW &#124; T@lk  18:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Very nice work on the article Tyler - it looks fantastic. Ian Furst (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hypothyroidism
Hey TylerDurden8823, I think I am finally finished giving hypothyroidism an almighty push. It's been a while since I have managed to make time for intensive article work, so many thanks for getting me involved! I've put it forward for good article assessment. Have a look at the current article, and please let me know if I've left something out (or something is not easily understandable). JFW &#124; T@lk  21:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking care of some of the points raised by James for the GA assessment. I will hopefully deal with as much as possible within the next few days, but I'm completing my own review of epilepsy first. JFW &#124; T@lk  12:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lithium carbonate
Hi Tyler, thanks for your message on my commons talk page about an image of lithium carbonate for bipolar disorder. I can certainly help - give me a few days and I'll get the necessary information. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Knee replacement
Why have you removed my "external link" under "knee replacement" at: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knee_replacement"

The external link refers to an article written by a US trained board certified orthopaedic surgeon who summarizes the all of the current peer reviewed literature related to bilateral versus unilateral knee replacements. The article also includes unique x-rays images and links to the American Academy of Orthopaedic surgeons official comments on the subject. The article is not judgmental and provides a very balanced review.

Since you have referenced the article as being promotional as per wiki definitions, please reference a part of the article that specially violates these guidelines. Thank you.

MD at My Knee Guide (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
 * Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with   with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
 * You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
 * We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
 * Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
 * Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
 * To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
 * To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation!  D ip ta ns hu Talk 12:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite! Count me in! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining. The wikiproject needs experienced editors like you.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 04:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Field section of Physiology template
The Template:WikiProject Physiology has been derived from Template:WikiProject Anatomy. I think that the |field portion is redundant. Can you help to remove it.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 04:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Giardiasis
As a three time veteran of getting giardiasis in the backcountry it is a subject of great interest to me.

I've written two posts with links containing numerous citations on the subject of backcountry waterborne giardiasis. I would be honored if you would take the time to read them and comment.

http://bucktrack.blogspot.com/2012/09/backpacker-giardia-debunking-skeptical_8.html

http://bucktrack.blogspot.com/2011/03/waterborne-giardia-for-backpackers-no.html

I made some edits on the Wikipedia Giardiasis article today, primarily based CDC research. PragmaticRealist (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

On incubation, I'd respectfully submit the following: ''Rendtorff (1954a, b;1979) found that the incubation period of giardiasis in human volunteers ranged from 9 to 22 days with a mean of 13.1 days. Benenson (1995) reported that the incubation period is usually 3 to 25 days or longer, with a median of 7 to 10 days. In a prospective epidemiological study, Jokipii et al. (1985) found that the incubation period for giardiasis was typically 12 to 19 days. In human volunteers, Nash et al. (1987) found that diarrhea or loose stools appeared within 7.25 (± 2.99) days of inoculation with G. lamblia trophozoites by intestinal intubation.''

http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/2009_02_03_criteria_humanhealth_microbial_giardiaha.pdf PragmaticRealist (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The studies you are citing for the incubation period are very old. The 2013 review article is a much better source of information. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

They are the only studies in existence to the best of my knowledge where humans were purposely inoculated and observed for symptoms. Unless the 2013 review article cites other, newer studies with new research specifically refuting these results I don't see how they can be ignored? PragmaticRealist (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not that they're being ignored, but Wikipedia does have policies that are to be followed. I would strongly recommend that you read WP:MEDRS to see why the review article is so favored over the older primary research articles you've put forward. I just looked at the 2013 review article's references section and this is what it referenced for the 9-15 days figure:

25. Wolfe MS. Giardiasis. Clin Microbiol Rev 1992;5(1):93–100. This reference can be seen with this URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC358225/pdf/cmr00038-0105.pdf. Search for incubation and you'll find it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you are more knowledgeable on medical issues in general as well as having greater expertise in Wikipedia policies. That said, the sourced original material quoted from the EPA overview clearly shows that the incubation period has been found to often be less than or longer than what is currently quoted in the Wikipedia article. The CDC article reviewed in November 2013 says http://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/giardiasis/ Acute giardiasis develops after an incubation period of 1 to 14 days (average of 7 days) "Treatment of Giardiasis: Current Status and Future Directions" from February 2014 says 1-2 weeks. The cited 1992 paper says The incubation period generally [my bold] varies from 9 to 15 days and doesn't cite it's own source. Again, no disrespect whatsoever intended and I'm not trying to be argumentative. PragmaticRealist (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2013 review article source remains valid though I agree it's not ideal that it did not reference a specific article when discussing the 9-15 days figure. I will have to give the EPA and CDC sources a look soon. I'll also review more of the literature and see if there is a recurring theme among other reliable sources or if they vary. It's possible that conflicting results or a range of results have been found and perhaps we should cite a wider range of time and cite sources supporting these variations. Feel free to change it for now as you see fit, but I'm going to look through these sources and see what I find. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts on Western University of Health Sciences
Would you mind having a look at Western University of Health Sciences? I am in the process of working on bringing it to good article status, and any feedback would be greatly appreciated! Rytyho usa (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look at it soon and give you some feedback. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great - thank you! Rytyho usa (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Haven't forgotten about this, just been a little busy in the real world. I'm still planning to give you feedback. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into the local language

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation


 * Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Bit of assistance
Hello! I noticed your valuable contributions at the Hypothyroidism article. Congratulations for bringing it to a GA status. We, from the Romanian WikiProject Medicine, plan to translate the article in the near future. The article was officially requested (in our specific request for new articles page) by some of the contributors. If I encounter any issues, can I notice them to you? Regards, Winter eu (user talk) 11:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Wintereu, you can talk to me if there are any issues though I cannot guarantee I will be able to help with all issues. I'm still working on improving the article and hopefully will bring it to FA status, but I'm glad to hear it's being translated. All the best. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Plantar fasciitis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Plantar fasciitis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the User WPMed template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --LT910001 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter
<div style = "color: #F4C430; font-size: 3.5em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #0000FF; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em">

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
 * WHO's list of Essential Medicines
 * Neglected tropical diseases
 * Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

I've () taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
 * IEG grant

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
 * Wikimania 2014

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
 * Integration progress


 * Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
 * Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
 * Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
 * Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
 * Integration guides

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short


 * To come
 * Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
 * Proofreading drives


 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Your GA nomination of Plantar fasciitis
The article Plantar fasciitis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Plantar fasciitis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A wonderful article, . If I may shill for WP:ANATOMY momentarily, I'd be very grateful if you could write a small, sourced summary here: Plantar_fascia following the model at other anatomy articles (eg Esophagus, Cervix). Hope that you're well! --LT910001 (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I can put that on my to do list. I'm busy at the moment, but I won't forget. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! It's always nice to receive some kind words of encouragement/appreciation. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the nice comment on my talk page. I did like the edits you did to Harm reduction. I can also understand the desire to stay away from toxic articles. I do believe that every editor tries to improve Wikipedia regardless of the information they place in the article. Though I have to ask myself twice with some. Lately I have been playing "Dont Worry, Be Happy" before or after editing the page to put a smile back on my face. :D AlbinoFerret  14:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Kefir
Mentioning studies in mice that gave preliminary anti-disease evidence without verification in humans is WP:PRIMARY and does not comply with the substantiation of WP:MEDRS. Having it in the article with subtitles misleads non-expert readers into believing the effects exist. The research is far too preliminary to mention it in the context of being anti-inflammatory or anti-carcinogenic.

I felt the evidence of the review on lactose intolerance is weak. It's just one review and not a review of clinical studies on a range of interventions that were effective, so overall is not worth discussing.

I'd like you to take a hard look at the nutrient content listed. How many of these nutrients are present in an amount > 10% of the Daily Value? If not at that level, they are not worth mentioning, according to FDA food labeling guidelines. The present long list gives the inaccurate picture that kefir is loaded with nutrients (same with the probiotics section), when the objective determination of nutrient content is not reported by the USDA or any reliable source I know. Both the nutrients and probiotics sections could be reduced to a sentence each. --Zefr (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the link to WP:Primary that you placed here, the references I used for the claim were, by definition, secondary sources: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Nowhere on the linked page does it say mentioning animal studies without subsequent verification in humans is defined as WP:Primary. This seems like your interpretation but I do not see anything on this page that says that at all. Your statement seems more like a critique of the current evidence base for use of Kefir in humans (certainly understandable, there is absolutely a paucity of data demonstrating health benefits in humans from regular kefir consumption). The issue is that the article does not say there are human benefits (except arguably with the lactose intolerance thing and that statement is really qualified with the "a 2003 study" thing showing that it was one single study from 10 years ago).


 * Can you show me these FDA guidelines that say they're not worth mentioning if they're not >10% of the DV? These are food labeling guidelines anyway from what you're saying and do not dictate whether it should be mentioned on Wikipedia or not. It's not a health claim, it is simply stating a fact that Kefir contains these things (stating that it contains them in significant amounts and is a rich source of vitamin X is indeed a health claim, but nowhere is that written in the article). I'm not sure how many are or are not above this threshold since I have yet to find a good source that specifies the amounts. The article makes no claim that kefir is a good or excellent source of any of these minerals, vitamins, etc., and only says it contains them. I think you may be reading too much into what's written and looking for hidden implications where there are none being made. Just because there is a bit of a laundry list detailing what nutrients it contains does not imply that it contains any of them in substantial amounts (nowhere is this claim even hinted at and the same is true for the probiotics, all that is said is that Kefir contains these things, it does not say in contains them in tremendous amounts, clinically significant amounts, or that it will translate to health benefits). The bottom line is that Kefir (according to high-quality secondary sources) DOES contain these things.


 * As for mentioning the studies in mice, I don't agree since WP:MEDRS specifically says otherwise. What subtitles are you referring to exactly? The "health" section heading? If so, take another look at the article, that had already been changed to the research section prior to your reversion. I'm not disagreeing that the evidence is weak, but it was enough to be covered in secondary sources from a high-quality journal and that should count for something. WP:MEDRS is pretty explicit in saying it's permissible to mention mice studies as long as the context is appropriate. If you feel it is misleading, we can work on the wording and make it clearer that these benefits have not been established in human beings. I have no objection to that. The only thing is I haven't found a secondary source discussing the lack of human trials. If you know of one, please let me know. I do not agree that it is necessary to reduce the nutrient and probiotic sections to one sentence each. That seems over the top to me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, while not an ideal source since it's technically press, this article from the Huffington Post does provide some discussion about the quantities of some of these nutrients (e.g., according to this admittedly suboptimal source, 1 serving of kefir has 20% RDA of calcium, mentions protein in a serving). http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/12/kefir-benefits_n_3914818.html If I find better sources verifying this, I will be sure to use them. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See section N19 and below in FDA document. Also, there is no published unbiased and reliable source for kefir nutrient content, such as in the USDA Nutrient Database, so I'd be wary of the Pakistani article where the authors' abstract statements seem unobjective and over-the-top in recommending kefir. --Zefr (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is true, despite pouring in some effort, I never could find any USDA data on the nutrient content. I'll take a look at what the FDA document has to say. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've now looked over the pertinent sections of the FDA page you linked. With respect to your point about the 20% RDA figure, I do not think it applies to what is written and I will explain why. To quote what the FDA said on the page you linked directly so there is no ambiguity: "N19. When may a "high" or a "good source" claim be made?

Answer: A "good source" claim may be made when a food contains 10-19% of the RDI or DRV (both declared on the label as the % Daily Value (%DV)). A "high" claim may be made when a food contains at least 20% of the DV. 21 CFR 101.54(b)-(c)

N20. May a "high" or a "good source" claim be made for a nutrient that does not have an established daily value? Answer: No. "High" and "good source" claims are defined as a percentage of the DV. Therefore, nutrients that do not have an established DV are not covered by the definition and may not make "high" or "good source" claims. 21 CFR 101.54(a)


 * If you look closely at what is written (in the Kefir article as well as in this excerpt from the FDA page), nowhere are there any claims about Kefir representing a good/excellent source or being "high" in any of these nutrients and that is what the FDA addresses on this page. If I were to say that Kefir is a "good" or "excellent" source of any of these vitamins or minerals without knowing if their amount exceeds this 20% threshold, then I would agree with your objection. However, no such claim is made. The paragraph in question on the Kefir page never makes any claim about being a good/excellent source for any of the listed nutrients and therefore this 20% FDA rule does not apply. The only claim that is made is that Kefir is a source of these nutrients at all. I will address the research part separately since they're really separate issues. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the FDA guidelines is to assure manufacturers state the reality of nutrient content to make it easy for consumers to understand food quality. If a nutrient content is < 10%, then it cannot be mentioned on a product label because it is negligible in value. From a physiologist's point of view, this makes sense, since such a low Daily Value means the nutrient intake from that food is not meaningful for cellular activity and disease prevention (all defined nutrients are based on disease prevention).

Likewise for Wikipedia, mentioning a long list of nutrients and probiotics without showing their individual contents and Daily Values, as exists now, is misleading because the typical user/consumer is going to think kefir is loaded with those long lists of nutrients and probiotics, when it may have negligible content of anything (except milk protein and calcium).

I'd still like you to pare down both paragraphs unless a reliable source describes the nutrient and probiotic contents as significant. --Zefr (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't agree and would like to open it up to a wider forum for additional opinions. I'm willing to add more quantitative statements about it if we can find them, but I do not agree that readers will automatically assume because Kefir CONTAINS many nutrients that they will make the jump that it is chock full of all of them. I think you're reading a bit too much into this. Is there a Wikipedia guideline or policy you can cite for support specific to such nutritional information? I'm happy to discuss this on WP: Medicine's talk page and get additional opinions. I wouldn't hold this up as a "great" source for nutritional information, but at least it provides some degree of quantitative data to give us a frame of reference (note-not suggesting using for the article, more for our general knowledge about how much Kefir really does have in the way of various vitamins, minerals, etc.): http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin94.pdf TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you go the Wikipedia page for common plant foods, you'll see the standard for nutrient content descriptions is the USDA database (already provided to you; hundreds of foods can be searched for nutrient content), usually presented in comprehensive tables on the right page of each Article. This online source uses the USDA database, although it's not current with the present Standard Reference. If you want additional points of view, WP:MEDICINE is fine; I think it will help you see my points. --Zefr (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I already know how to access the USDA database, your response did not answer my question. The question is whether there is a policy or guideline stating that Wikipedia does not mention nutrients in this manner if they do not exceed the FDA's threshold of 20% qualifying it as a good source (again, that claim is never made on the Kefir page) or that listing these nutrients is considered to be an implication that the food or beverage in question possesses these nutrients in high amounts (I maintain that this implication does not necessarily follow at all). As I said earlier, I'm fine with having others weigh in and give their respective viewpoints. If someone else presents a better reason to remove it, I would be amenable to that, but I think the reasons you have presented aren't sufficient cause and I disagree with the logic behind them.


 * Also, while stopping short of actually quantifying it, this paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20492126) states that fermented milk products (including kefir-yes, it actually specifically named Kefir as an example) are rich sources of folate due to their folate-producing microorganisms and probably contain even more folate than milk and could represent a significant source of folate in the diet. Here is the paragraph to which I am referring in the article: "Many dairy products, however, are processed using microbial fermentations in which folate can be synthesized, significantly (Lin and Young 2000) increasing folate concentrations in the final prod- uct. Therefore, fermented milk products like yogurt (100 μg/L), are reported to contain even higher concentrations of folate than nonfermented milk (20μg/L). The elevation of folate level can be attributed to the production of additional folates by bacteria. Therefore, production and consumption of folates by the microor- ganisms will be probably the most detrimental factors in determin- ing the final folate level in various fermented foods, such as yogurt, kefir, bread, and fermented milk products. Yogurt and buttermilk contain approximately 13.7 and 7.5 μg 100/g folate, respectively, with approximately 80% to 90% of the total folate appearing in the 5-formyl-THF form (Muller 1993; Vahteristo and others 1997)." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Benzalkonium Chloride page edits
Many of the references you removed conformed to WP:MEDRS, yet were removed, eg. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2958436/

Also, your application of WP:MEDRS seems quite selective, ie. not removing this: http://www.aornjournal.org/article/S0001-2092%2806%2962517-9/abstract

Kindly review your changes in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WitheredLimb (talk • contribs) 01:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The first article you linked here does not conform to WP:MEDRS as it is a primary in-vitro study. Upon further review, the second paper is indeed a literature review, but is from 1998 and the section already contains newer literature reviews, so its necessity is questionable at best. If you have concerns about other material removed, feel free to let me know with specific diffs and specific concerns about what was removed. If you think something I removed conformed to MEDRS and I removed it incorrectly, please explain how it conformed to MEDRS. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I seem to have misread your earlier comment on my talk page here about the 1998 literature review. Perhaps consider that I wasn't done and had to leave for dinner? I haven't scanned the entire article and the 1998 literature review you have pointed to was in a different section that I did not work on yet, correct? That's in the biological activity section and if you look through my edits you'll see I never touched that section once. It's best not to jump to conclusions or make implications like that about "selectivity" as you say. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of my additions, which were made in good faith, is not in line with WP good conduct. The onus is on the subsequent editor to justify each edit, not on the editee to justify (using diffs!) why the edit should not have been made. In the 25 minutes it took you to evaluate approximately 50 citations you removed a citation to a clinical trial, which you did in error. I have since reinstated this.

Further, re: your removal of pre-clinical studies; you would be aware that the lack of progression from pre-clinical trials is due to the findings of deleterious effects in animal and experimental studies, it is not ethical for these studies to be extended to humans. To include these studies provides a context for the lack of human clinical trials, to exclude them is to withhold information from readers, which is not in line with WP principles. I will re-present the other citations in a way which confirms with WP reliable data guidelines and request that they are only removed following consensus on the BZK Talk page.

I remind you that the benzalkonium chloride page is a page on a chemical compound, not a medical page. BZK has many applications and this page is unlikely to only be searched for those looking for medical information relating to humans only.

Please disclose any conflicts of interest and please conform to WP good conduct.

I will copy this over to the BZK Talk page and request that consensus is obtained prior to removal. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by WitheredLimb (talk • contribs) 07:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First, I had no idea these were your additions (it doesn't 'matter to me who added the content). Second, I do not appreciate your tone or implication and you sound like you are not assuming good faith despite your earlier implication that you would (notice I have not removed the material you added back in and have been conducting myself properly by discussing here and opening the discussion to other editors to determine if there is consensus for your edits, mine, or neither). Third, I did justify my edits as I remain convinced that the material you added (primary studies including case reports and preclinical animal and in-vitro studies) do not conform to the guidelines at WP:MEDRS and clearly stated so in my edit summaries. Fourth, your implication that I have a COI relating to benzalkonium chloride is groundless and ridiculous and I'll leave it at that. We will see if the community at large agrees with your reasoning for keeping this information in the article or not. That's really all there is to it. It does not matter if the benzalkonium chloride page as a whole is not a medical page, if we are making claims about human health, then the material is subject to the MEDRS guidelines and that's the only information I've edited on this page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please be sure to remember to sign your comments (a minor matter, but you should do it all the same). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Virus Disease
Tyler,

As DocJames and I already discussed, Section:Misconceptions is for the good of the common man who reads this article for information, and not as an encyclopedic reference.

Kieran P. Clark (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Kiernan, where and when was this discussed? I don't see it on the article's talk page. If it occurred on Doc James' talk page, I don't keep track of every conversation that takes place there. There was no edit summary that I saw explaining why this information should be included. Can you clarify why this is a beneficial and necessary addition to the article? As for not being useful as an encyclopedic reference, this is an encyclopedia, so please do not lose sight of that fact. I do not disagree with you that misconceptions about EVD are rampant, but the article aims to dispel such misconceptions by providing accurate information sourced to high-quality references. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

 * Thanks Bill! I also like the term de-jargonification :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment

 * Hey Tyler,

I am an Osteopathic Medical Student and was thinking of making it a project to clean up the wikipedia pages about Osteopathic Medicine since they are kind of a mess. My goal was to give unbiased information from globally respected Osteopathic associations/organizations as well as published articles and books about Osteopathy that are current. Especially since Osteopathic Medicine is a respected profession, I was hoping to provide more reliable and accurate information about the philosophy and profession. I am a busy medical student, however, so I'll probably have to give up on this project if you undo all of the updates I am trying to make, which would be unfortunate. I understand that wikipedia is so great because people can collaborate and question each other, and I also realize that you are way more experienced in wiki editing than I am (and I appreciate all of the proofreading!!!). I just wanted to express what I am trying to do in this little corner of wikipedia and hope you understand that I am just trying to update the information so that it is as accurate and professional as it can be. Thanks, brimwanthony Brimwanthony (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I do understand what you are saying about primary sources. I was under the impression that using those sources in order to define and provide a simple explanation would be ok since that shouldn't be contested information. It makes sense to me that the content that either supports the philosophy or slanders it would be re-organized in the effectiveness and criticism sections of the article. Doesn't that make sense? I don't think it's fair to start discrediting a profession in the introduction of the page without even properly defining what it is being discussed. I am in no way wanting to remove negative things about osteopathy; it is important to include all perspectives and as much wide breadth as possible, but as of now, the site is very much swayed to the pseudoscience end, which is pretty offensive and incorrect. Am I wrong in thinking that it is ok to use AOA, AACOM, etc. as sources for defining the profession? Brimwanthony (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Brim, the answer to your question is...yes and no. OMT is considered one aspect of the osteopathic medical profession and that of osteopathy as practiced by non-physician osteopaths outside of the United States. When considering this question, the better question to ask is if you can find such a definition in a secondary source (my money is on yes since I've seen definitions of OMM in such sources). The efficacy of OMT is considered controversial (and therefore most claims on the Wikipedia page (even of the most benign sort)) are best supported by the highest-quality references available. Sources like the American Osteopathic Association, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, etc. are primary in nature and are better used on a page like Osteopathic medicine in the United States for defining aspects of the profession there (though probably best to do this in conjunction with non-osteopathic sources as well).


 * These primary sources tend to have wording in them that may not be viewed as neutral by all editors on Wikipedia and such edits may view the use of sources that are so close to the topic as promotional in nature or as pushing a certain pro-osteopathic medicine point of view. This is why, when in doubt, it's best to stick to secondary sources that won't have their neutrality questioned. This is of even greater importance on pages of controversy such as OMT. In terms of the offense, I cannot comment one way or the other, but the bottom line is that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia has to reflect what the mainstream sources say and be balanced. From your comments, I understand you don't feel the lead section of the article is balanced and your point is definitely heard. This is still best discussed on the article's talk page where you can make compelling, well-reasoned arguments supported by high-quality evidence. Wikipedia is also a collaborative effort and editors often disagree with one another. One editor can be right and yet be outweighed by community consensus, so it's an imperfect system that is hopefully getting better over time. Wikipedia is not meant to be on the "cutting edge" of things either. So, in short, there's no rush when it comes to adding new content.

Psoriasis
Hi Tyler,

I'm a psoriasis patient .. thank you for aome further explanation about this disease. It's really hard because of the itchy feelings that I had every single minute all day and with those criticisms I received from other people who don't care about what psoriasis patient feel in every single words they're saying. This information helps me a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelle rear (talk • contribs) 07:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Chelle, I'm glad you like the article! Be well! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
For the great job you do simplifying Wikipedia and correcting my grammar and spelling :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks James :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Aortic rupture
Mr. Durden (great username by the way, one of my all time favorite movies), I'm wondering if there is a policy somewhere on wikipedia about using common names for medical terminology, like saying "Fast heart rate" as a symptom, rather than "Tachycardia (Fast heart rate)". I appreciate that we're not writing for a medical audience, but wikipedia is used by lots of medical professionals who know the difference between tachycardia and an arrhythmia, both of which can cause a fast heart rate. Anyway I don't feel strongly about this, mostly just curious if theres a policy. Thanks! BakerStMD T&#124;C 18:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment on the username (yours is very cool as well) :) I'm honestly not sure if there is a definitive rule or policy about this. WP:MEDMOS does encourage defining jargon when first using it by putting an explanation in parentheses, but I usually think that ends up looking messy and instead like to avoid the jargon altogether and have it wikilinked if they wish to know more. I try to decrease medical jargon where possible in medical articles (renal --> kidney, hepatic --> liver, etc.) for those who may not understand the term (e.g., ESL or poor reading comprehension) and are too lazy (admittedly their problem) to click the wikilink and find out what it means. Tachycardia is really just a type of arrhythmia though anyway since sinus tachycardia would be considered an arrhythmia (just not the most worrisome one usually) but certainly there are other "fast heart rates" that are not sinus tachycardia. I think most medical professionals will get that fast heart rate is code for tachycardia. We've done this as well on topics of the utmost importance (e.g., sepsis) (which technically SIRS criteria is HR>90 so not technically tachycardic yet, but we're trying to keep it simple). If a medical professional reading the article is really confused, hopefully they will be equipped with the mental tools to sort out their own confusion (but again I think most will understand). I think the onus is on us to write as simply as possible for this encyclopedia and the highly educated will have an easier time figuring it out smaller details. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Acne vulgaris
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Acne vulgaris you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bluerasberry -- Bluerasberry (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I really appreciate this Bluerasberry! If you have any concerns about the article, I'll just ask that you put the review on hold and give me a chance to make the necessary revisions so we don't have to do it all over again! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks for the kudos Core! Derm is definitely interesting! :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dyslexia
TylerDurden8823 hi, I was wondering if you could start the review for dyslexia, it is for GA nomination, I really appreciate it,(congratulations on acne vulgaris GA) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thought, but that's not really my forte. Right now I'm concentrating on measles and MI anyway but I have no experience reviewing and an important article like dyslexia should be reviewed by someone who is a veteran at it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Thank you for the compliment Jyt! It's appreciated :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry!
Hi TylerDurden8823,

I apologize for removing the comments you made on the naturopathy page. This was an accident. I am new to Wikipedia and I am not sure what I did to remove the comments. Should I not edit a post once comments are made? Again, I'm sorry, and I appreciate you finding a source for the edit I submitted, Solomonmorris (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you! Solomonmorris
 * Hi Solomon, that's okay. I had a feeling it was an accident and that's why I just wanted to let you know about it and advise a little more caution. It's okay to edit sections after comments have been made, but its important to take care that other comments are not lost in the process when you comment or create a new section. I know you're new to Wikipedia so feel free to come to me or any of the other experienced editors with questions or concerns any time. I will always do my best to help you to the best of my ability. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

CFS article
It's good to have other editors intrested in the rather messy CFS article. On this ocassion I re-instated the use of etiology rather than your preferred 'cause'. I acknowledge the need for clear language but etiology and cause may not always be precisely the same thing. In the case of CFS, neither etiology (the process of disease) nor cause( the entity responsible) are known and we do need to be able to represent that within the article. It was also the case that your change made at least one sentence into even more horrible language. I'm not defending the current text but given the edit wars that have happened in the past on the CFS article, precision is something I think we need to keep in focus. Cheers, --In Vitro Infidelium (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure I understand your distinction of process vs. phenomenon, but to sum up my feelings on the matter...whatever. I really don't care strongly about it and make the change in most articles because it's simpler for most readers who usually are unfamiliar with the term etiology but will understand the term cause. As for the "horrible language", I have absolutely no clue what sentence you mean. I'm pretty darn sure I didn't commit some heinous grammatical error on the page. By the way, I just checked and WP:MEDMOS disagrees with your interpretation as the wikilink from cause leads to the etiology page strongly suggesting that we use them as synonyms here on Wikipedia. If this is somehow not strictly true of the definition, it seems like splitting hairs unnecessarily to me over something fairly unimportant. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes.
SPACKlick (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Dental Floss
Hi TylerDurden8823. Thank you for editing the Dental Floss Wiki page for us. We (oral health students from Australia) are new to using Wikipedia and any help is greatly appreciated. We will work on improving the referencing and editing of the page. Any more tips or advice on how we can improve the page is welcomed. CB17742881 (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, the dental floss page definitely needs work and as oral health students you guys are the perfect ones to do it! That said, I did notice a few things editing wise that can be improved. First, if you haven't read it already, I would recommend everyone having a look at WP:MEDRS. That's definitely the first place to start. The highlights are that recent (think published within the last five years or so) secondary sources (think literature reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, etc.) are very strongly preferred as references. Medical/dental textbooks are certainly fine too but try to consult the medical literature first when possible. I would also recommend using the format I used in the article for journal articles. Lastly, I would say try to find secondary sources that are MEDLINE-indexed as that is considered a marker of quality and articles that do not have that (even if the journal is a MEDLINE-indexed journal) are not preferred. I think that's more than enough advice for one day. If any of you have questions or concerns, feel free to drop me a note any time. I'm always happy to help (especially newcomers). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! We meet up as a group every Monday so we'll check out the pages that you have recommended to help us get started. A bulk of our edits will be done on Mondays so we'll discuss as a group if we need some advice and let you know. P.S. Nice quick replies! Keep up the great work! CB17742881 (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghrelin edit
Is this a weird coincidence, or something else? I just reviewed the ghrelin edits and found you made your first edit on that Page just 14 hours ago. How did you happen to go to that Page, and find a primary source that deserved deletion? And did you happen to notice that I am the #1 editor of that Page with 36% of the edits, and the #3 contributor to added text with 10%? So now we have crossed paths both on Hypertension and Ghrelin! I am very dedicated to shepherding these 2 Pages (as well as Platelet, Leptin, Magnesium, John Dalton, Atom, and Caffeine) to continued improvement. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Coincidental. :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hypertension references
Could you take a look at the last 3 references on the Hypertension page, which I have just added, and either put them in the proper format, or tell me how to do it? I would appreciate any help you could give me. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see Doc beat me to it. Next time :) We can still talk about how to format references so that you feel confident doing it on your own. Let me know when you're ready to discuss that aspect of things. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Are the two textbook references OK? IiKkEe (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of references on the page. Which references specifically? If you tell me the ref number I'll be able to find them more easily. One ref I see is the Kaplan clinical hypertension ref and that one I probably would avoid. I think there are likely better sources to use. Additionally, that reference is not formatted properly so we can discuss reformatting that. I usually recommend the cite book template like this one: Just use the skeleton of the template here by copying and pasting the skeleton of the template found when you attempt to edit this section of my talk page (just empty out all the random stuff I put in the template of course). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow - a template! Perfect, I am set.

I am referring to the last three references on the Hypertension page - two are textbook references. I thought textbooks and review articles were preferred - why avoid these text references? Thanks. IiKkEe (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct that review articles and textbooks are preferred per WP:MEDRS guidelines. I'm just of the opinion that better texts than Kaplan hypertension (is this associated with the Kaplan review course?) should be referenced when possible. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, this is Norman M Kaplan, who has been publishing his hypertension text since 1973, and is now in its 11th edition. He has been on several JNC's, and has received a lifetime achievement award from the American Heart Association for his contributions to the field of hypertension. It is generally a  well-regarded textbook. IiKkEe (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a favorite hypertension text? IiKkEe (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a different story. I am personally unfamiliar with Kaplan's texts so you'll have to tell me if it's regarded as one of the authority textbooks in the cardiovascular world. And no, I don't have a specific textbook that I prefer for matters related to hypertension. might though... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I will move on now to getting feedback from you about specific edits I've made on the Hypertension page. I'll start by saying if you agree with the "other side", it will not offend or anger me: I appreciate an honest answer. None of these edits are earth-shattering: I edit (add, delete, alter) because I think it improves the article; another disagrees and reverts or alters. I'll take one at a time, start with the most recent, and work backwards in time.

Today's reversion is a sentence I added stating that guidelines have been published for which patients are candidates for renal denervation, with a reference. The reversion is explained with the statement "adds little". I think it is a useful piece of information and reference. Do you have an opinion? How to resolve? - at this point, it's "me vs him". IiKkEe (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten your question. I'll take a look soon. If Doc removed it, he usually has a good reason but I'll take a look to see if perhaps the edit has some merit and just needs tweaking in some way or if it just doesn't merit inclusion in the article. I also want to address the "me vs. him" thing and just offer a friendly reminder that editing can often feel personal since we tend to edit pages that are important to us, but reverts are usually not meant as a personal insult. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A side issue is that the reference to the deleted sentence has been left behind and attached to the preceding sentence which is on a different subject. The "me vs him" was not meant in a combative way, but to indicate that at this point there are only two individuals participating in discussing the merits of the added sentence and with opposing opinions. I do wish the justification were a little more detailed than "adds little". My response is that in my opinion it "adds something". IiKkEe (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If Doc's reasons are unclear, the best thing to do is to go to his talk page and ask him for more of an explanation so you're both on the same page. My guess based on what happened is that since it doesn't appear to be a widely recommended therapy and the section frames it as largely still in the experimental phase (i.e., going through clinical trials with some trials not demonstrating a large clinical benefit), he doesn't think it's worth going into that. I would ask him though if it's something you find concerning or worthy of further discussion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

ABFRACTION PAGE Hello, Thank you for your contribution to our efforts on the wiki page. We are oral health students and are quite new to this so any help is appreciated. Please let us know if there is anything you feel needs changing about our page. Thanks again for your help Talkteeth (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Talkteeth Talkteeth (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Misshygiene Talkteeth (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Moc24 Talkteeth (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Ebd2015 Talkteeth (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Glen holtkamp oht

Your work is appreciated!

 * Thank you! That's very nice of you. I always appreciate some kinds words being sent my way :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Acne vulgaris
The article Acne vulgaris you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Acne vulgaris for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Congrats Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

hi
if you have a minute I could use your help Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, happy to help in a bit. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for sorting through James' GAN recommendations for Guillain-Barré syndrome. Nice work. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference error
Hi Tyler, I wonder if you could take a look at the Lyme disease page you worked on as it looks as though some of the references you replaced created a cite error in the reference section of the article. List defined references seem to catch a few people unaware, I tend to just comment them out but If you are really sure they are no longer needed, you could just delete them from the reference list. CV9933 (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)