User talk:Wawot1

Welcome!

Hello, Wawot1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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. Again, welcome! –RHolton ≡– 04:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple myeloma

Thanks for your very good work on the myeloma article. Are you going to be around a bit more to help out with other articles on medical subjects? The lymphomas, in particular, could do with some tender loving care. JFW | T@lk 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again my compliments, now for the PSC article! Would you join WP:MED, the medical contributors' forum? JFW | T@lk 21:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I've put my username on the medical contributors' forum and will continue to contribute periodically, but likely sporadically, due to those pesky hours spent in the hospital....cheersWawot1 (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:

Read our Manual of Style for medical articles
Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess
Have a look at some related WikiProjects
Have a look at the collaboration dashboard

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- Addbot (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmodium

I have reverted the edit. This is a messy issue. The known phylogenetic trees show some Haemoproteus species lying with the taxon currently known as Plasmodium. Some others lie outside this grouping. There is little question that this will happen: the difficulty is in gathering enough biological material to extract the DNA from to do this reorganisation. Quite a few of the listed species are known only from a single paper and the material used in the paper may no longer exist or be unusual for DNA extraction. Also funding for taxonomic work isn't exactly plentiful - which is why the taxonomy remains a mess.

It can be safely said that the species listed in the introduction should be regarded as a species of Plasmodium but that the current classification does not name it so. DrMicro (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Might I suggest you have a look at the section on phylogenetics and see what you think. There are links to a number of trees hosted elsewhere. I think it is safe to say that virtually all experts in this area would regard some of the Hameoproteus species as belonging to the now extended Plasmodium genus but its really a technical problem to redo the classification in an acceptable fashion. This is a tricky issue at the minute and not just for Wikipedia. DrMicro (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of AURORA trial

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article AURORA trial, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Clinical trial with no evidence that it was particularly distinguished/notable

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ironholds (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wa? W0t? 1!

While trying to make sense of your username I reasoned that it might be an initialism of "what a waste of time". Or was it perhaps "what a wealth of technology"? Curious... JFW | T@lk 21:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Wawot = What A Waste Of Time. It's an old joke that goes back 15 years or so.....Wawot1 (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I was on to something. JFW | T@lk 19:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malnutrition

Thanks for the heads-up. I've got a very busy week ahead and will probably be little use, but give me a screech if there are specific things you'd like me to look at. I'm dragging my heels in completing the rewrite of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and after that I might dip into stroke again. Sadly, stroke is a monumental task and I'm not sure if I can handle it alone. JFW | T@lk 19:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say that I really appreciate your efforts to add a few high-quality medical sources, such as you did a Hydatidiform mole a few weeks ago, to articles when you are able to. Incremental improvements are what makes Wikipedia work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits

I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your efforts on the eculizumab page: cleaning it up, removing redundant and inappropriate information, and making it a more effective article all around. Thanks for making it a better contribution to the community at large. Hopefully others will find it useful.

All the best.

--Ergeorge123 (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with understanding the encyclopedic (rather than emotional) contribution that can be made to the PSC article. Not only did I learn something, but I think the veracity in your suggested wording will serve a broader audience. Best, gr-wiki (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is wanted

Please provide your input here on the legitimacy and desirability of accepting external links in relevant Wikipedia articles to MedMerits, a new and freely accessible online resource on neurologic disorders. Presto54 (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message for you on Jack's talk page

User talk:Jackehammond

.

Reference on effects of GAVEs on B-12 absorbation

Dear Wawot1, I will leave the decision to you, but does this reference meet the proper standards for inclusion on the Vitamin B12 deficiency and the Pernicious anemia. No need to post answer on my page. I will check back. You don't have to go into detail as to why it isn't or is. I trust your judgement on this. If you think it does meet the standard could you post it as you seem to know the correct forum - eg the difference between associated and causes. Best Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

Hi Jack -

The paper is talking about the effects of steroids on absorption of B12 in patients with pernicious anemia....and it's only 6 patients....and it's from 1966. I don't think that we can draw conclusions about GAVE syndrome and B12 absorption from this paper. As a rule of thumb - meaningful findings tend to work their way into review articles, especially given a 46 year lag time!

Cheers Wawot1 (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wawot1, Thanks for the reply. And you are 100% correct. As they teach new officers about war: first assert the type or war you are fighting and just not the one you want to fight. I re-read the paper more closely, and it would not matter if it was 1966; I mistook the title in my zeal for GAVEs when it was not -- I read what I wanted to, and not what was. And you are right the numbers of patients is way to low to prove anything. Again, sorry to have bothered you with this trivial and thanks. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

Wiki Med

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit)

Get free access to research!

...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]