User talk:Rod57

His a fake wanting people to hate. Telling lies don't trust him. He abuses his wife

Managed to repair damage to oxypnictide caused by "patent" edit today. Rod57 (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Rod57 (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi no problem! The article was a realy useless stub and after searching literature I found out that the hype for a new superconductor in 2008 was somewhat stupid because the material is a known superconductor since 2006. But for the next few months there will be a lot of groups doing the stupid game of mixing all kinds of Oxides with all kinds of arsenides and dope it with flouride to break the record. This will bring no further scientific knowledge, but brings you onto nature or science. So the article will grow! But know I will go back to the friends at Phoenix and the TEGA instrument, to look what they have.--21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You've been very quick to call things stupid. I don't think either use was justified. Let's see what results arise in the next year. Rod57 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the subject is stupid, but the work to mix all kinds of things with all kinds of things to get into nature. The subject will create also good science, when people try to understand what the underlying physics are and if cuprates and oxypnictide have the same physical background. Upto now only a class of substances was found, this is OK. To synthesise all members of the group is no science, this work for a robot! I had to do stupid work like this for my PhD, thats why I do not like it!--Stone (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Powder in Tube, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. [...] 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 [...] Woland (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have explained why I disagree on the talk page, and tried to improve the article. Rod57 (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The PIT content was later merged by ? into Superconducting wire which seemed to unbalance that article. Rod57 (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I do appreciate the comments you have made to Gold coin, but I think your edits will be stronger based if they were sourced. I encourage you to find sources and to improve the section you changed by adding them. Let me know if you need help.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miguel, The 3 or 4 statements that have been queried were there before my edit (which was mainly to add a subsection heading and move one paragraph out of the subsection. I think the original contributors could easier justify their contributions. Rod57 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it would be very difficult at this stage to find who did those contributions. Since they have been challenged (asking for sources) the whole section could be removed in the future if sources are not provided. I thought I would let you know, since you might help to put it back on track. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've provided a source for two of the challenges in Gold coin#Counterfeits. The other two seem too obvious to need a source. Do you think they could be untrue or just not worth mentioning ? Rod57 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have removed one of your sources, since this is a site that basically clones content from Wikipedia, hence it is not reliable (is the same as sourcing the same article). Once thing to remember is that Wikipedia is read by any sort of folks, so what for you might seem obvious, for others may not. I would suggest to find sources for it or to remove it since it can be seen as speculation without the proper sources. Let me know if you need help. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, & I do need help. When you insert the fact template at the end of a paragraph are you challenging the entire paragraph, or just the last sentence or clause ? (It might help to put the words being challenged into italic.) I have split two of the paragraphs at what I hope are logical places. I still feel most of the content you have challenged is easily verified if anyone doubts it (although it seems self evidently true). Could you move this discussion (or rather your explanation of what exactly you are challenging) to the article talk page so others can contribute ? I dont mind what you do to the article itself. Rod57 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Brick-wall filter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Terrillja (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to argue on Talk:brick-wall filter that it is useful and better than the proposed merge, but maybe there is an even better way without messing up electronic filter. Rod57 (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It now redirects to a section in sinc filter - OK. Rod57 (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, given your numerous edits to medication-related articles you may be interested in joining WikiProject Pharmacology. JFW | T@lk 07:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I'm now a 'participant'. Rod57 (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of ASA404, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.lungevity.org/l_community/viewtopic.php?t=36544. 03:18, 13 December 2008

New content provided. Rod57 (talk) 04:00 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. thank you for your contributions to the transcription factor article! In case you haven't already seen this, check out the template filler tool. Given a PMID, you can quickly create a fully formatted {{cite journal}} template that can be directly copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. Using this tool can save you a lot of work and insure that citations are displayed in a consistent way. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the hint. I'll try to use a citation tool. Rod57 (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated ALD518, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALD518. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given some reasons to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALD518 Rod57 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to reconsider my delete, but I am not the least convinced, and have explained why. You claim UK newspaper coverage: let's see it DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I can't find the newspaper cutting so I'll withdraw that claim for now. Rod57 (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be interesting to see if it appears on deletionpedia, if deleted here. Ah, I see it has survived anyway. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding a brief "History" section. Historical information is always welcome, and most drug articles are sorely lacking in this respect. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was 10,000 not 100,000 IU/d that was in the statement I recalled. It is still in the article. Here is the paragraph. Some of the diagrams in the refs are interesting, and may answer your questions.

Exposure to sunlight for extended periods of time does not normally cause vitamin D toxicity.^[1] This is because within about 20 minutes of ultraviolet exposure in light skinned individuals (3–6 times longer for pigmented skin) the concentration of vitamin D precursors produced in the skin reach an equilibrium, and any further vitamin D that is produced is degraded.^[2] According to some sources, maximum endogenous production with full body exposure to sunlight is approximately 250 µg (10,000 IU) per day.^[1] According to Holick, "the skin has a large capacity to produce cholecalciferol", and he produces some data demonstrating that

"[W]hole-body exposure to one minimal erythemal dose of simulated solar ultraviolet radiation is comparable with taking an oral dose of between 250 and 625 micrograms (10 000 and 25 000 IU) vitamin D."^[2]

--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the diagrams in the refs were v useful. Rod57 (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created, Antrin, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling. ... Thank you. Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete tagging was in error and has been rescinded. Rod57 (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks very much for your addition to the ISS article regarding recent debris avoidance maneouvres. I've moved and merged your paragraph into the 'Orbital debris' section (which is where the rest of the DAM material is found), but I was wondering if you could please verify the reliability for the sources you used; the ISS article is featured, and so all references have to be very reliable to maintain the quality - if you could provide a rationale for them on the talk page, or provide alternatives, that'd be great. Colds7ream (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've add a couple of reliable refs to the International_Space_Station#Orbital_debris section, but the original NASA report of 1.7 km seems to have moved so replaced it with ref to Orbital Debris News which shows graph. Rod57 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is proposing that the English Johanna Budwig article should be deleted. You might wish to offer your opinion. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Keep eg as notable enough for search on ACS to find 2 docs. Rod57 (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our 'friend' is continuing his campaign. I'd be obliged if you could keep an eye on the page. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod, I've added my comments to Talk:Johanna Budwig. I'd be interested in your views, particularly on restoring the other ACS reference and tackling the Nobel Prize canard. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod57, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Talk:Thames Archway. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. ... To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 00:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion was desired as main page moved to Thames Archway Company. Rod57 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might like the link I just added to the external link section of List of recessions in the United Kingdom :

• UK economy tracker BBC News - comparison of UK recessions

--Michael C. Price ^talk 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Interesting curve for the 1930-1934 recession. Rod57 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here. Courcelles (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pending changes seems to be empty at the moment but I'll keep checking it. Rod57 (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. ---kilbad (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm more interested in cancer generally than dermatology specifically. Rod57 (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your last addition: while the reference you provide is reviewed is only a primary source. Secondary sources used in the article have already balanced your source with others and concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the neuroprotective effect of Q10. Per WP:MEDRS a secondary source prevails. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly point me at the later sources/studies please. Do they show the 2002 study was faulty ? Rod57 (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Nice-guideline page 53, which talks about two articles on Q10 (one being your addition) and outlines some of its problems finally concluding "The small neuroprotection trials performed with co-enzyme Q10 in PD so far have been encouraging, but further evidence is required before it can be recommended routinely." and "Co-enzyme Q10 should not be used as a neuroprotective therapy for people with PD, except in the context of clinical trials."

Additionally in Obeso-2010: "Several molecules have been proposed as potential neuroprotective agents against Parkinson's disease. Molecules that reduce dopamine cell death include monoamine oxidase-B inhibitors (selegiline, rasagiline), anti-apoptotic agents (TCH346, CEP-1347), glutamate antagonists, promitochondrial drugs (coenzyme Q10, creatine), calcium channel blockers (isradipine) and growth factors (GDNF)113. However, none of these molecules has definitively shown neuroprotective effects in clinical trials114. This may indicate the ineffectiveness of these compounds, but may also be a consequence of the limitations of clinical-trial design115—use of the wrong dose, recruitment of too broad a patient population or selection of inappropriate endpoints". Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working in this article for some months and any help is welcomed. However I am trying to use only high quality secondary sources (reviews in peer-reviewed journals) which are the preferred sources per WP:MEDRS. I would greatly appreciate if you could back up any assertions introduced in the article with this kind of sources. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't have access to the full text of Obeso. I'm not sure that its dismissal of CoQ10 is justified since the 2002 study was randomised and did show a statistically significant effect at 1200mg/d. Secondary sources may be preferred but the primary source seems justified by the data it provides. It's only a clinical study - not a medical recommendation. Most disease articles mention treatments under investigation. Rod57 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the PD article doesn't seem to link to the NICE guidelines so I haven't read them, but the quote you give seems to support and even justify my addition rather than oppose it. Can you say what problems they found with the 2002 study ?

It is cited many times: see those citations begining with "The National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions, ed (2006)". We follow exactly the sources when we say: "Several molecules have been proposed as potential treatments.[40] However none of them has been conclusively demonstrated to reduce degeneration in clinical trials. (This includes Q10). Feel free to bring here a review that says that it has been proven its usefulness.--Garrondo (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Garrondo's evidence supports my addition rather than his deletion of it [1] . I will come back to this issue if/when I get time. Rod57 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obeso full text Obeso 2010 does not reference Shults 2002. Parkinson's disease Rod57 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garrondo above quotes only part of Obeso 2010, which continues "coenzyme Q10 (ref. 119) and selegiline—have had positive outcomes in terms of reducing the progression of motor deficits in early Parkinson's disease." Gypsydoctor (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you move/disambiguation work. I must say, I don't think it was done correctly.

Firstly, there's a factual issue. "TNBC" was the correct name of the programming block; it was never called "Teen NBC". Even though that's what the name came from, the initialism was never spelled out, even partly. Therefore moving it creates a factual error of the title, and needs to be reverted to ensure that readers aren't mislead.

Secondly, a disambiguation page is unneeded. As there is only one other article on the page, which is at a title other than the initialism, a disambiguation hatnote using the {{about}} template would not only suffice, it'd be more accurate.

So in short, TNBC should be the article on the programming block, as it is the only factually correct title, but that article should be edited to include the hatnote:oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A separate disambiguation page is unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I thought other uses of TNBC would eventually require or justify a disambiguation page. Would a better name for the "Teen NBC" page be "TNBC (something)" eg "TNBC (TV channel)" ? or would it be better to have a "TNBC (disambiguation)" page ? Rod57 (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguator should only be used when both articles have the exact same name. As neither of these do, there's no need for a parenthetical disambiguator. And we really don't need a disambiguation page for two entries, especially when one doesn't have the actual title "TNBC (something)". If there's something else that may, eventually, require a dismabiguation page, then it can be created. In short, a hatnote will do. [Oknazevad]

That doesn't seem to be how disambiguation pages are used in wikipedia.

If/when a disamb page is needed what should we do :

a) Have TNBC with hatnote to "TNBC (disambiguation)" ?

b) Have "TNBC (TV channel)" and TNBC being the disambiguation page ?

I guess (a) since TNBC was created first - or shouldn't creation order matter ?

BTW I'd rather fix it in one go since there seem to be at least 5 notable uses of TNBC Rod57 (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, depends on whether any of the other uses are exactly known by the initialism "TNBC". If not, then TNBC should be the programming block and the others should be at TNBC (disambiguation) which would be linked by a hatnote at the programming block page. If any of the others are known only by the initialism, then we have to consider WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.oknazevad (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I dont think any are known only by the initialism so I'll make TNBC (disambiguation) as you suggest. Rod57 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC) ... I can't do the move as I'm not an admin so I've edited the move request into the Teen NBC talk page. Apologies for the trouble. Rod57 (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you add something about patient zero to the article. Thanks WritersCramp (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The early NDM-1 cases don't seem to have infected each other so the concept of patient zero seems wooly so I'd rather not. Rod57 (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this edit to the page Click chemistry and am unsure of whether or not to move the comment from the main page to the talk page, or delete it being misinformation. Since you've edited this page before recently, I'm wondering if you know. -WarthogDemon 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on click chemistry and am not even sure the comment is correct (since it's not clear to me which is the final product) but I think a suitable comment should stay on the main page as most readers won't look at the talk page. Someone should probably ask the creator of the image to clarify/correct. I'd be inclined to put the comment as italics and in brackets () to hint that it is a later comment. Rod57 (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning these edits, could I persuade you to format the references you added into citation templates, to make the references more consistent with the style used in the remainder of the article? It is also unnecessary to mention in the text that your source was published in a particular year, and probably even that it was a review. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the refs into cite templates (I often do but was a bit rushed when I did these). I've left the "2009 review" comments (eg in Multiple_myeloma#Maintenance_therapy) as I feel they are helpful and seem the easiest way to indicate the date and type of source, which given the patchwork nature of many WP medical articles, many readers and later editors may find useful as medical opinions evolve over the years. Rod57 (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Although the removal of the spurious space was, indeed, minor, the addition of a link does not appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:MINOR. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for violating WP:MINOR. However I have queried your reversion of my edit at Talk:Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus#What is notable research. Rod57 (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My [removed] edit was mention of a phase I trial. Better I guess to wait until phase II reports encouraging preliminary results. - Rod57 (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viruses and diseases are two different things; therefore H5N1 flu refers to Transmission and infection of H5N1 and not to the virus itself, unless there is no separate article on the disease(s) caused by the virus. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! regarding this edit: As far as I know, MedicalNewsToday isn't Public Domain and so copying text from there counts as a copyright violation, so I removed the text. If I am wrong and the site is PD, please feel free to re-add it. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; I thought (from other articles) that attributed quotes were acceptable. I've tried to add a summary of the extra info. Rod57 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work with this article! Under certain circumstances (that I've never fully understood myself), short quotations are acceptable. Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources seems to limit this to "one or two sentences". Anyway, I'd only use quotes if absolutely indispensable to be on the safe side – for example, a paragraph from a literary author to illustrate their style. I don't think it's ever necessary to use a quotation from a scientific source; you can always paraphrase. Happy editing! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last edition: since it is only based in a recent primary study in a mouse model it is probably too premature for inclusion in main article. I am going to move it to the pathophisiology subarticle. If there was a review supporting its claims it would may merit inclussion in main article. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. FWIW this was mentioned in the UK national press.

( My change [2] was moved to Pathophysiology_of_multiple_sclerosis#Acrolein.) Rod57 (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean a secondary reliable source (review in a peer-reviewed journal indicating that it is a notable research direction). Media press is not reliable to see the importance of an article. They have an even higher recentism bias than wikipedia.--Garrondo (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I assumed you meant by 'review'. I agree press not reliable on importance of news. Rod57 (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it (hydralazine re acrolein) to Therapies under investigation for multiple sclerosis which seemed more appropriate. Rod57 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Chemotherapy re nelfinavir - My addition and earlier content removed. I replied, (now at Talk:Pancreatic_cancer/Archive_1#Chemotherapy) but was article fixed up ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - but update Nelfinavir#Potential_anti-cancer_activity first. See what results from phase 2 for cancer. - Rod57 (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In this edit you added Aldosterone-Producing Adenoma to the APA dab page. I had a look at the article it redirects to, and it does not mention "Aldosterone-Producing Adenoma", and obviously it should, as that's where it redirects. But I'm a bit hesitant as to the right place. Is it a synonym of Conn's syndrome? Can you please add it in the correct place? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it is a synonym : Primary aldosteronism says "When it occurs due to a solitary aldosterone-secreting adrenal adenoma (a type of benign tumor), it is known as Conn's syndrome". : I had Aldosterone-Producing Adenoma redirect to Conn's syndrome (which redirected to Primary aldosteronism. Unless there is a technical reason (eg multiple redirects that dont work) why this should not be done I think this was better (clearer) than your redirecting directly to Primary aldosteronism because in the future Conn's syndrome may change from a redirect to an article in its own right.

Are you arguing that there are non-adrenal aldosterone-secreting adenomas (in which case Aldosterone-Producing Adenoma could say that as well as linking to Conn's syndrome) ? Otherwise, I think what I did was reasonable and your change could be confusing. What do you think ? Rod57 (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Wikipedia does not support multi-redirects, so Aldosterone-Producing Adenoma cannot redirect to Conn's syndrome. Even if I left this redirect, a bot will "correct" it. That's a technical problem that we have to live with.

I am not arguing anything. My understanding of the life sciences is in a high school level, so I don't even understand half of what you said. All I said is that I think the term "Aldosterone-Producing Adenoma" should appear somewhere in Primary aldosteronism, and knowing nothing of the subject I'm at a loss as to where to add it. If you say it's a synonym for Conn's Syndrome, I'll add it there. Have a look at Primary aldosteronism and see if I did it correctly please. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your change makes what was there before somewhat confusing so I have added the bold term in a separate sentence instead to avoid any confusion. Rod57 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Best regards and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Reactor period, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It got deleted before I could add {{hangon}}. It was a temporary redirect to Talk:Boiling_water_reactor_safety_systems#What_is_reactor_period. Best to find a suitable main page to add the definition to, then make the redirect go there. Rod57 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Might be a tad pedantic, but the protein will be 43 aminoacids (no N-term methionine). N-term is acetylated, though I've no idea if that can be shown in single letter code. Even more pedantic - this is the human protein. All placental mammal orthologues are identical, marsupials have E8Q and amphibians differ even more. I'm not editing at present because not being an experienced Wikipedian, I'm unsure whether this level of detail is appropriate. Jgedwards (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J, Thanks. IMO pedantic detail is fine in an encyclopedia. I wasn't aware of the n-terminal acetylation and lack of methionine and was just trying to follow the source [to give an idea of the protein size]. I'll add that this is the sequence in humans. Do you have a source for it being for placental mammals ?

There's no need to be experienced to edit. Level-of-detail/pedantry can [also] be discussed on article talk pages so others can contribute. Thanks again. - Rod57 (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"AZ" occurs in your recent change, but is not defined in the article. Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I've linked it to Astra Zeneca to clarify. - Rod57 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added a statement to the Simvastatin article in 2008 stating, "In the UK in 2008 the typical per patient cost to the NHS of simvastatin is approx £1.50." Since then, someone tagged your statement with "Citation needed" to request a citation to provide authority for the claim. Do you have one? I would like to read a reliable source on monthly cost for this drug. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC : NHS overspends on statins. Jan 2008 says £1.39 a month (2008). NHS CKS July 2012 says £1.37/month in 2012. I've updated the article with both references. - Rod57 (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Olive oil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Linolenic acid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. [...] Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since linolenic acid arguably should not be flagged as a disambiguation page and in this case the mixture is what is intended by the sources I have left the link in olive oil. - Rod57 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{talkback|Talk:List of artificial objects in heliocentric orbit|Inconsistent re Upper stages|ts=21:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)}}
Hi Rod. A long time ago you placed a comment in this Talk page. I just responded. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure a Category is the best way to collect defunct upper stages. - Rod57 (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a guideline here [3]. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says " The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition".

In most cases, including colorectal cancer it flows much better IMO to go from Diagnosis to Management, and to have Prevention (at least primary prevention) immediately before Epidemiology. I might suggest that on the guidelines talk page one day. - Rod57 (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear from the guideline talk page Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/Archive_6#Order_of_sections that others thought it would be better to change the order of the sections in the guideline, and to emphasise that the order was not mandatory. - Rod57 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nb talk:MEDMOS/Archive_7#WP:MEDORDER.3F - Rod57 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

requested talk:MEDMOS#Please_change_the_.27encouraged.27_sect - Rod57 (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jmh649, You reverted my changes to colorectal cancer saying 'references required'. Are you asking for references in this article (maybe because you doubted my additions were true) or because they weren't easy to find in the linked articles ? Also, I'd be grateful, if you revert my changes, if you'd mention it on my talk page please so I can deal with it while it's fresh in my mind. -Rod57 (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When one adds content the expectation is that one will add a reference to a high quality source as well per WP:V and WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better IMO to ask for a source than revert the addition. - Rod57 (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We also do not typically list all meds currently in trails such as "TAS-102, a drug in phase III clinical trial" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But a phase III trial is notable for conditions where the standard of care to get on a drug trial. - Rod57 (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain your words "Soviet work" after the "see also: virotherapy" link here? The linked article does not currently mention Soviet or Russian, nor did this version at the time. – Fayenatic London 16:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The virotherapy article seems almost exclusively about RIGVIR. I said 'soviet' because the work (on RIGVIR) was carried out in Latvia whilst it was part of the soviet union. Would you prefer we changed it to 'Latvian work' or perhaps 'Mainly RIGVIR (Latvian)' ? - Rod57 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't look closely enough. Soviet is fine. I changed it to "(mainly RIGVIR, Soviet work)". Thanks – Fayenatic London 21:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rod57. I noticed this edit to the Photonics article. Just a tip: you want to use the {{cn}} tag like this {{cn|date=April 2013}}. That prevents the page from getting added to Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters and a bot from re-adding a new date parameter in a day or so. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting I forgot the format, and fixing it. - Rod57 (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I've applied. - Rod57 (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Have moved User;Rod57/sandbox/Cochrane-access to User:Rod57/sandbox/Cochrane-access for you. Good luck with your app. - TB (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, and Thanks. - Rod57 (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to Cochrane Collaboration's library of medical reviews: Link to form.

If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, Ocaasi 13:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• Books & Bytes - Issue 5 Read the full newsletter  Done

• Books and Bytes - Issue 8 Read the full newsletter  Done

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

Read the full newsletter  Done

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

Read the full newsletter  Done

[This reversion] I suspect was based purely on my edit summary since the reversion comment relates only to what's in the edit summary. Reverter made no mention of my other changes he reverted.

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, FDA Accelerated Approval Program. ... Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – FDA Accelerated Approval. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. ... ... Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I missed this notification - too late to contest - perhaps the SD should have just been a merge suggestion - looks like he did - see below. - Rod57 (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making FDA Accelerated Approval Program. I proposed it for deletion and merged the see also section to FDA Accelerated Approval. The issue is more in the news lately - I hope the concept can be developed here. If I proposed deletion in error then message me and I will help put things back. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...when you edited Epratuzumab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Effector cell

 Done Changed link to T helper cell - BTW Effector cell needs work. - Rod57 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Andyjsmith#Your_reversion_of_my_edit_seems_heavyhanded Sept 2015. ajs seemed to agree.

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was after DJ reverted my correcting an out of date statement in multiple sclerosis rather than asking for a source. - Rod57 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rod, I saw you're a member of WP:Energy and that you had posted on the talk page for efficient energy use. I proposed a few edits to the article as whole over there; could you take a look at them if you've got a moment? As to your point about reverting the title of the article to "energy efficiency", I agree that it's a better title, but I'm not sure if it can be implemented as long as the disambiguation page holds the actual title.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FacultiesIntact: Hi, I only had a quick look but your change from Vehicles to Transportation looks helpful. I notice the current article now has a section on Australia (which I suggested be split out). I think the article should be split into Energy efficiency programmes/initiatives (which can summarise what various nations and organisations are proposing and doing) and Energy efficiency principles - but it would be too much work for me. I'll mention it on the talk page. - Rod57 (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...

Books & Bytes Issue 15, December-January 2016
...

Read the full newsletter Y : Has open access button at bottom

... 

Please do open a discussion on the Peregrine Talk page. I will be interested to hear your arguments. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Started at Talk:Peregrine_Pharmaceuticals#Proposal to split out (demerge) Bavituximab - Rod57 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy to talk about your perceptions of my editing here or at my talk page... that just doesn't belong on an article Talk page.Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 16, February-March 2016

• A new cite archive template, ...
• Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter Y : has open access button at bottom

Issue 17, April-May 2016

Read the full newsletter

Y : The Wikipedia Library

The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes Issue 18, June–July 2016

• New donations (research access) - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, and more!
• Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata (inc wikidata for medicine suggestion)
• ...
• Read the full newsletter - Done Y -

The Wikipedia Library - Books & Bytes Issue 19, September–October 2016

• New and expanded donations/access - ...
• New Library Card Platform ... Sign up for Library Card.
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links -
• Read the full newsletter - Done Y

The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes Issue 21, January-March 2017

• Spotlight: Library Card Platform (& plans for Library Bundle) ...
• Read the full newsletter - Done Y

I'm not sure where this should redirect to. The current target doesn't have a lot of information but links to chimeric antigen receptor. Even there, CAR-T doesn't get described well.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Adoptive cell transfer#Genetic engineering is not that helpful so I've changed the redirect to Chimeric antigen receptor which does cover CAR-T in a few places (see Contents) (but not yet in the intro). - Rod57 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I didn't know whether I should do it myself. This doesn't qualify as a medical source on Wikipedia, though there are usually links to acceptable sources. And I see you previously did this for CART.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I have struggled with this too. Way too much of the discussion about CAR-T ignores that it is a cell therapy, with all the baggage that comes with that. The CAR article should really just have the details of the receptor component, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chimeric_antigen_receptor#Propose_rename_to_CAR-T_or_Chimeric_antigen_receptor_T_cell - Rod57 (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 22, April-May 2017 

Read the full newsletter

Please use these. This is not an appropriate source for medical content.[4] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Rod57: (and CC: @Doc James:) I've modified the redirects from "Checkpoint inhibitor --> Cancer_immunotherapy#Immune_checkpoint_blockade" and "Checkpoint inhibition --> Cancer immunotherapy#Immune checkpoint blockade" to link instead to the Immune checkpoint page. I was confused in part since Cancer immunotherapy#Immune checkpoints also links to the same section.

Also noticed there's some overlap in content on the Immunotherapy page. Maybe this content can be consolidated into one page instead of spread across three different pages? Mainly I want to find a better location to post research from big Pharama companies researching Checkpoint Inhibitors and some of the more notable studies/failures/new drugs on this. (Note) One new source I'd like to add/integrate with this: [5]

Shaded0 (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Shaded0: I think the redirects should be changed back (since immune checkpoints is too general).

I've long felt we need a separate article on [immune] checkpoint inhibition/blockade and hope to create one soon (unless someone else does). Talk:Cancer_immunotherapy#Proposed_split_out_of_the_Immune_checkpoint_blockade_section - Rod57 (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rod57: I went ahead and did so, see Checkpoint_inhibitor_therapy. Right now this is just a straight out copy/paste from immune checkpoints, but will review here over the next day or two for additional content / edits with the under construction tag there. Feel free to edit away! Shaded0 (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaded0: Looks good, but the polysaccaride and neoantigen sections do not seem to belong in this article. - Rod57 (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rod57: Ok - I will go ahead and remove these two. Shaded0 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 23, June-July 2017 *Library card *Bytes in brief 

Read the full newsletter

Issue 24, August-September 2017

Read the full newsletter

Per our MOS we generally use person not patient. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I had made this edit because on first reading 'person' could have referred to 'healthy donor'. The FDA reference describes the patients cells being engineered (which clears up the ambiguity). Note to self to review MEDMOS on this. - Rod57 (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hum good point. Have adjusted the wording further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was browsing articles tagged as too technical and R-SMAD came up. I saw you edited the article a couple of years ago, and was wondering if you think the article, along with I-SMAD, should be merged into SMAD (protein), as there don't seem to be enough sources to support separate articles on both. Thanks, and please tag me when you reply! Enterprisey (talk!) 07:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enterprisey - I-SMAD could easily be merged (and might as well be), and possibly R-SMAD with a bit more care - but best to also suggest it on the relevant pages with {{Merge to|SMAD (protein)}} and let people respond on the talk pages. - Rod57 (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Rod57! I wanted to notify you that I have redirected your stub Entry, descent and landing to the pre-existing article Atmospheric entry, which already covers the topic in great detail. There may be value in writing a section there as an overview of the various challenges for EDL at Earth and Mars, based partly on your prose. Let me know what you think. — JFG ^talk 20:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Hi JFG - Thanks for letting me know - but I feel your redirect is unhelpful - Entry is just one phase of EDL and the Atmospheric entry article correctly only covers the entry phase. The issues in Descent and Landing are very different and should not go in the large Entry article. The EDL stub/article (correctly IMO) linked to Atmospheric entry, and the Descent and Landing sections could be expanded and linked to current or future specific articles. (EDL is discussed as a thing - see many NASA docs - eg as each phase has to cope with the results of the previous one). Please consider undoing your redirect. - Rod57 (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bytes in brief ==

• For these academic journals, Wikipedia isn’t a bug—it’s a feature

• After a catastrophic fire at the National Museum of Brazil, a drive to preserve what knowledge remains

• How many Wikipedia references are available to read? We measured the proportion of open access sources across languages and topics

Hello Rod57,

My name is Matt Nemet and I am a Public Relations professional at GCI Health, an agency specializing in healthcare. We’re reaching out on behalf of our clients at Biogen to potentially update outdated information found on the Wikipedia page for its multiple sclerosis treatment candidate, opicinumab.

We’re reaching out to you because we know Wikipedia users depend on active, qualified editors for accurate and supported articles. We felt that given your previous efforts editing Wikipedia pages like pembrolizumab you might be interested in reviewing this page through the lens of updating older information.

To further disclose our position, we are aware that per Wikipedia’s guidelines neither the company nor the company’s representatives can make direct edits to Wikipedia pages. Respecting these rules, our priority is ensuring that the Wiki has the most up-to-date information – we’re reaching out in the hopes you may be able to assess the current state of the page against publicly available information on Biogen and opicinumab to make accurate and appropriate updates.

Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions.

Best regards, MSN2017 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt, If you know of any third party publications, peer reviewed publications, or independent/disinterested discussion of opicinumab (ideally not based on biogen press releases) you could mention them on talk:opicinumab (for everyone to consider) and, if you wish, ping me or mention my name (like I have here: MSN2017) to notify me as well. or you can email me ("email-this-user" under Tools on the LHS of my talk or user pages). - Rod57 (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rod57, Thanks for your response! We’re planning to share references for consideration via the Opicinumab talk page and will be sure to tag you for visibility. Best, MSN2017 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 

The article now has a map with all the important radiotelescopes and the positions. However it stolen from the German Wikipedia, so you might change the name of the templates (I could not find the English equivalent), but it also works to my surprise. As it contains more than just the deep space network, you might reuse it also somewhere else, you just need to eliminate the unnecessary parts.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the article is massively outdated and represents the situation (at least) six years ago. Within the next five years (after Qitai is finished) China will be the number 1 player in radioastronomy by a mile and even now it has a deep space network with several huge dishes, that is more capable than Esas ESTRACK network, especially with the big dishes in Tian Ma and Jiamusi. Prepare for a manned moon mission, a manned moon orbiting space station and a manned mars mission (or at least a serious attempt) after that.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Giftzwerg 88 - I don't plan to update Chinese Deep Space Network again

(Today it says "Planned improvements by 2012 : A new 35-meter antenna at the Kashgar station. & A 64-meter antenna in Jiamusi. (~130°E)". Do you have sources for their completion and use ?)

- but I look forward to more exciting Chinese missions. - Rod57 (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might use the sources of the German Version (it´s all in English). I´ts hard to find any sources at all. For the unsourced parts you can confirm the real existence of the dishes in google maps at least. I got some of the positions out of several blogs, which are not valid sources for Wikipedia.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How to download the books that just entered the public domain

...

• Why Wikipedia's Medical Content Is Superior

 Done 

You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.

ReJoin Wiki Project Med Foundation

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

As you suggested, the Follicular lymphoma page has been undated with sections on transformed follicular lymphoma. (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done