HemligDuva
Joined 2 October 2019
Latest comment: 2 years ago by MrOllie in topic April 2022
HemligDuva, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi HemligDuva! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC) |
August 2021
edit
Hi HemligDuva! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Pancreatic cancer that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. --Renat 11:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
April 2022
edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Pancreatic cancer, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @MrOllie, I haven't edited many articles here so I'm not sure what I am doing wrong. If there is a test available, that is groundbreaking and gives hope to this whole community I can't mention the company or test name? How should I write about this test without mentioning the name? The test is accepted by the biggest pancreatic cancer organisations (PANCAN, The National Pancreas Foundation). It's a big deal in the world of pancreatic cancer. They have also presented at NCI (National Cancer Institute) HemligDuva (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or 'spread the word' about new products, especially not with blatantly promotional wording. Are you associated with this test or with Immunovia in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- @MrOllie Previously there has only been imaging methods to discover pancreatic cancer. It's crucial to discover it early to be able to treat it. That's why this test is groundbreaking, I understand that wording like that might not be accepted but it truly is groundbreaking. There is no way that everyone who needs to be under surveillance can be with the current methods, because of cost and resources. I am not associated with the company, I'm taking part in the community around pancreatic cancer, it's a very big community in the US, especially with relatives that are under hereditary risk.
- I would really appreciate if you could give me some guidance in how I can edit my contribution to fit Wikipedia. HemligDuva (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not report on 'groundbreaking' medical science, only on old and boring stuff, generally that which has been covered by systematic reviews. See WP:MEDRS for sourcing requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I added a link to the peer review, published in a well respected journal. I think the company has been around since mid 2000 and just recently launched the test. I think it's important to give information about a test that can definitely rewrite how this cancer can be handled. Not much hope in the way of early detection other than that. No big breakthroughs really in this world. How do you suggest I rewrite it? HemligDuva (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Peer reviewed is not sufficient, please read the guidelines. We need systematic reviews, not primary studies. Again, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to give information about new stuff - we're an encyclopedia, not a news site. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Peer review should be somewhere between a review article and a systematic review. I have previously been told that a peer reviewed article was required to post this kind of information. I tried to add info before it was peer reviewed. Fully understand the need for a peer review. What's good about Wikipedia is that is an encyclopaedia that can be updated with relevant accurate information. I'll post a new edit here and see what you think about it. HemligDuva (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Whoever told you that peer reviewed is all that is required was incorrect. Do not continue making the same sort of edit over and over, that is edit warring and can get you blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'll post it here so that you can approve beforehand. HemligDuva (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Get agreement on the article's talk page, I'm not the only person who disagrees with your addition. MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Get agreement by adding a text and publishing it again? HemligDuva (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think about this? Perhaps the text in italics aren't necessary.
- Late 2021 an early detection test for Pancreas Cancer called the IMMray PanCan-d test was released in the US. It's a simple blood test that measures nine biomarkers in the blood. The biomarkers can indicate the presence of cancer cells as well as the immune system’s response to the tumor. The test is currently only available to the familiar and hereditary risk group for surveillance.
- The IMMray PanCan-d test detects Stage I – IV pancreatic cancer with 92% sensitivity, and detects Stages I & II pancreatic cancer with 89% sensitivity and 99% specificity.
- The test has been peer reviewed in Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology March 2022 - Volume 13 - Issue 3. HemligDuva (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think that you are ignoring what I told you about Wikipedia's medical sourcing requirements. Without a fully compliant source, you will not be able to add anything to the article - rearranging the wording slightly is not addressing that fundamental flaw. MrOllie (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- So you mean that a double blinded validation study is not compliant? How come? HemligDuva (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I told you above, we don't use single studies, we need review articles. We also need the papers to be independent - this article has authors who work for the company in question. - MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- A peer review is constructed so that the peers validate what the authors are stating, they can choose to disqualify it. HemligDuva (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- You can disagree with Wikipedia's policies on this if you like, but you've still got to conform to them if you want to write about medical issues. MrOllie (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- A peer review is constructed so that the peers validate what the authors are stating, they can choose to disqualify it. HemligDuva (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I told you above, we don't use single studies, we need review articles. We also need the papers to be independent - this article has authors who work for the company in question. - MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- So you mean that a double blinded validation study is not compliant? How come? HemligDuva (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think that you are ignoring what I told you about Wikipedia's medical sourcing requirements. Without a fully compliant source, you will not be able to add anything to the article - rearranging the wording slightly is not addressing that fundamental flaw. MrOllie (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Get agreement on the article's talk page, I'm not the only person who disagrees with your addition. MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'll post it here so that you can approve beforehand. HemligDuva (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Whoever told you that peer reviewed is all that is required was incorrect. Do not continue making the same sort of edit over and over, that is edit warring and can get you blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Peer review should be somewhere between a review article and a systematic review. I have previously been told that a peer reviewed article was required to post this kind of information. I tried to add info before it was peer reviewed. Fully understand the need for a peer review. What's good about Wikipedia is that is an encyclopaedia that can be updated with relevant accurate information. I'll post a new edit here and see what you think about it. HemligDuva (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Peer reviewed is not sufficient, please read the guidelines. We need systematic reviews, not primary studies. Again, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to give information about new stuff - we're an encyclopedia, not a news site. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I added a link to the peer review, published in a well respected journal. I think the company has been around since mid 2000 and just recently launched the test. I think it's important to give information about a test that can definitely rewrite how this cancer can be handled. Not much hope in the way of early detection other than that. No big breakthroughs really in this world. How do you suggest I rewrite it? HemligDuva (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not report on 'groundbreaking' medical science, only on old and boring stuff, generally that which has been covered by systematic reviews. See WP:MEDRS for sourcing requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or 'spread the word' about new products, especially not with blatantly promotional wording. Are you associated with this test or with Immunovia in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)