User talk:Wikifrieden

Welcome!

Hello, Wikifrieden, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Quick introduction to Wikipedia
How to write a great article
Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLoS
Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).

Again, welcome!

15:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality of sources concern

Please read WP:MEDRS carefully and try to find better sources for your edits, this is not very difficult. Some rules are negotiable but sources such as in this or this edit are very likely to be challenged and removed. Richiez (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richiez,

The concern for the quality of sources is not warranted. The reference I used contains five additional references that in turn refer to hundreds of high quality sources. So the reader can check every statment against a wide viariety of literature.

Wikifrieden (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not good enough, instead you can go through the references yourself and try to select the best ones that conforms WP:MEDRS. If you think that MEDRS is too restrictive you can open a discussion on the talkpage of MEDRS. Richiez (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sites that do not meet reliable source standards by referencing reliable sources, and the standards for medical claims are higher.Novangelis (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

My edits to the breast cancer entry are absolutely correct with high quality citations but they are continually being deleted. The entries were made because they can help prevent breast cancer. I would be bery grateful for your assistance!Wikifrieden (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, your repeated edits are a violation of several Wikipedia policies; please add new sections to the bottom of any page that doesn't specify alphabetical or top-added placement. See Wikipedia:External links. You have not even posted to the talk page, which should have been your action after you were first reverted, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, although the reverter didn't recommend in their edit summary or do so either. As an undiscussed change, rather than an unresolved discussion, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Dispute resolution would refer you back to the user(s) or talk page, too. Repeatedly attempting to insert the same contested material is considered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and can result in Blocking or Banning. Dru of Id (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the concern for medical related information. However, all the sources I used were reliable from reputable journals. The weight of a great deal of basic science and statistical evidence supports the Wikipedia entries. The video quickly summarizes a great deal of responsible information that is helpful to readers. Wikifrieden (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns. I have taught health professionals for many years within the largest college of medicine in the US. I have added numerous references to the video so that it is clear that the reader is getting a quick overview of the field backed by literally hundreds of references. A reader can just click on the link to play the video. I believe this would be quite valuable to someone looking for information who has a limited background in molecular biology and biochemistry. An interested reader can then find all the links in a search engine. The video is at http://www.scivee.tv/node/39255 There are additional references in the wikipedia text that have been overlooked that I would like to add. Wikifrieden (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list your sources here, complete with PMID links? Can not find much evidence for the alcohol-BRCA link as now. There is plenty of confusing results, how about drinking 6+ cups of coffee to cut BRCA breast cancer risk by 70% (PMID 16032702)? Richiez (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spamming

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Breast cancer. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The repeated attempts to link a video are spam. Inserting it in random spots in the article is spam. Adding it along with claims that do not match sources is spam.Novangelis (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

What you need to do is use review articles or major textbooks from the last 5 years as references. If you need help with access to these drop me a note. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I am very sensitive to the quality of the information I added and have used high quality review articles and high quality publications from dozens of journals. I cannot believe it is considered spamming to add a video that summarizes many high quality journal articles. The video in fact represents many years of research results. Wikifrieden (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

use the high quality sources directly and you are fine. Ideally every statement should be visibly associated with one such source. - Richiez (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will use a high quality source for every statement. I will also add high quality references to the video to document that as well in ensuing edits.

Thanks for your efforts. The video is not WP:MEDRS, if everything is backed by reliable sources it might be acceptable as an additional complementary but pretty much unneeded source. Like most editors here I am mainly relying on PubMed indexed information and Google Scholar. Once you get used to that you will see the advantages - 1-click access to related articles, citing articles and updates. A video makes that much harder. Also the breast cancer article already might have many interesting sources that you can reuse, for example in the epidemiology and risk factors sections/sub-article. Richiez (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent question! I agree that it is plenty confusing the way it is. There are over 100 references that prove that alcohol causes breast cancer. The BRCA link is also almost unavoidable from basic science studies that show damage that requires BRCA mediated repairs and from at least 7 epidemiologic studies. I will reference some of the primary evidence for this in my latest edit and include articles that reference much of the rest. I have very much enjoyed talking with you. Wikifrieden (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough evidence that on average alcohol increases total breast cancer risk. There is also quite some evidence that TNBC risk is practically unaffected by alcohol and all the risk increase is ER+ BC (although I have seen contradictory results in TNBC). So it is rather plausible that BRCA1 and BRCA2 risks will be differently affected by alcohol. So we need better evidence on that. Now combine that with other factors like coffee consumption, OC use, physical exercise etc. BRCA mutation has some sources, I consider PMID 14576434 very interesting. A risk of 24 or 67% is a quite dramatic difference. However so far we are totally out of luck trying to pinpoint this dramatic difference to some particular factors. Alcohol is one possible factor but the effect shown in epidemiological studies is not nearly enough to dramatic to explain this difference. We can try collect all publications and maybe we will see something. Richiez (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally "enhanced surveillance" is not prevention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source

Your paper [1] is a primary not a secondary source. Secondary sources are review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Heilman, A primary source is preferred because there is the potential to misinterpret primary source material by review. Primary source material has been subjected to rigorous peer review while secondary source material has often not been reviewed. Many readers are fully capable of judging primary source material for themselves or they can discuss it with their physicians. I am carefully restating information from a primary source that is potentially very helpful to many people worried about breast cancer. I would really appreciate it if you let the readers judge this information for themselves. Please do not remove it. Wikifrieden (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikifrieden, sorry, but what Doc James is saying is indeed in line with the Wikipedia guideline. We absolutely prefer secondary and not primary sources, especially for biomedical information. The problem is that the quality, usefulness or reproducibility of primary research results is extremely variable. It's really quite untrue that Wikipedia's editors or readers are to be expected to evaluate primary source material for themselves. Secondary sources are required to select, aggregate, synthesize and interpret the primary research results, and review articles published in good journals are absolutely peer-reviewed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so is based mostly on secondary and not primary sources. You clearly have expertise in the area of breast cancer research but you need to please remember that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for non-specialist readers. We base content on secondary sources and try to write in a way that non-specialists can understand. Thanks... Zad68 14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

 There are many many references to primary source material on Wikipedia in every subject I have ever looked up, so if you insist on secondary source material you would have to remove a large percentage of references on many topics.  One of the references I tried to post was removed because it was labeled as primary source material  The reference actually contains an extensive review of the literature but Doc James never even bothered to look at what he was deleting.  Videos that I tried to  post are easy to understand reviews of a great deal of literature produced in ways that a non-specialist can understand.  The content is based on 15 years teaching to non-specialists but these videos were also arbitrarily removed.  I am well qualified to do this with more than 30 years experience in teaching and research with over 50 publications including multiple reviews.  I am only asking for a fair chance to contribute. Wikifrieden (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]