User talk:Wclamanna

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Wikiproject Medicine!


Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED). We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of content about health here on Wikipedia, pursuing the mission of Wikipedia to provide the public with articles that present accepted knowledge, created and maintained by a community of editors.

One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board!

First, some basics about editing Wikipedia, which is a strange place behind the scenes; you may find some of the ways we operate to be surprising. Please take your time and understand how this place works. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Everything starts with the mission - the mission of Wikipedia is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, working in a community of editors. (see WP:NOT)
 * We find "accepted knowledge" for biomedical information in sources defined by WP:MEDRS -- we generally use literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical or scientific bodies and we generally avoid using research papers, editorials, and popular media as sources for such content. We read MEDRS sources and summarize them, giving the most space and emphasis (what we call WP:WEIGHT) to the most prevalent views found in MEDRS sources.
 * Please see WPMED's "how to" guide for editing content about health
 * More generally please see The five pillars of Wikipedia and please be aware of the "policies and guidelines" that govern what we do here; these have been generated by the community itself over the last fifteen years, and you will need to learn them (which is not too hard, it just takes some time). Documents about Wikipedia - the "back office" -  reside in "Wikipedia space" where document titles are preceded by "Wikipedia:" (often abbreviated "WP:"). WP space is separate from "article space" (also called "mainspace") - the document at WP:CONSENSUS is different from, and serves as a different purpose than, the document at  Consensus.

Every article and page in Wikipedia has an associated talk page, and these pages are essential because we editors use them to collaborate and work out disagreements. (This is your Talk page, associated with your user page.) When you use a Talk page, you should sign your name by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comment; the Wikipedia software will automatically convert that into links to your Userpage and this page and will add a datestamp. This is how we know who said what. We also "thread" comments in a way that you will learn with time. Please see the Talk Page Guidelines to learn how to use talk pages.


 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. You can also just add our talk page to your watchlist and join in discussions that interest you.  Please leave a message on the WPMED 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!
 * The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note below if you have any questions or problems. I wish you all the best here in Wikipedia!

--Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Citing yourself
Hi, and welcome again to Wikipedia. We love having experts contribute to Wikipedia. There is so much good that experts can do -- namely seeing at a glance if there are gaps in article, or places where there is too much emphasis given to something that should be trimmed back, or places where an article is out of date. Experts also tend to be aware of the best literature on the subject and can easily bring those references and content based on them.

But so far your edits have been focused on adding citations to what is apparently your own work, and this is not good really - we specifically talk about this in our general conflict of interest guideline at WP:SELFCITE as well as in our specific guideline for conflicts of interest in health topics (WP:MEDCOI). Please consider contributing more broadly. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Jytdog, I appreciate your input. I agree that self citation is not ideal however in the case of the disulfide bridge story, this is a novel finding regarding etanercept structure - function. I have done my best to also cite other work on etanercept structure as well here. Our peer reviewed article on biopharmaceutical / biosimilar manufacturing is also a valuable citation as it covers the 35 year history of biopharmaceutical production. I will however look through the literature to see of additional manuscripts may be applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wclamanna (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying!  Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this  in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread.  I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.  That is how we know who said what.  I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.  Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The ref on biosimilar manufacturing is GREAT. A review in a good journal is exactly the kind of reference we want, and that was a sorely needed paper in the world. Thanks for writing it and for bringing it to WP. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jytdog for the clarification on communicating in Wikipedia, sorry for any confusion...will be sure to follow this protocol in the future. Also thanks for your kind words and support regarding the biosimilar manufacturing review. I am hopeful that this review will improve understanding of these important products and appreciate the support from Wikipedia in increasing information and transparency here. Kind regards. William 170.236.180.14 (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Jytog, I have adapted my update to Etanercept in Wikipedia to only cite relevant structural attributes and to cite all relevant literature (not just our own publication). I believe this additional information is valuable for scientists who work with this molecule and hope this is acceptable. The article also now mentions the name of the Sandoz biosimilar (Erelzi) which is balanced as the Samsung biosimilar (Benepali) is also mentioned by name. 170.236.180.14 (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)