User talk:Cipher

From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history

{{==Welcome to MEpedia!==

MEpedia is a wiki, like Wikipedia, but focused on the science, people and history of M.E. All its content is created by volunteer contributors, like you. Every contribution to MEpedia, however small, moves the project forward. All changes to pages can be undone so you can edit confidently, but take it one step at a time and start with small improvements to existing pages. Thank you for joining us!

To see your contributions history, click Contributions in the top-right corner. To see recent contributions by others, click Recent Changes on the left. Not ready to edit pages, but want to suggest a change? On the page, just click Discussion, and write your suggestion there for others to see.|realName=|name=Cipher}}

-- New user message (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2018 (EST)

Welcome User:Cipher![edit source | reply | new]

Thanks for your contributions, including the new page on Nutcracker phenomenon. It is good to have you join us. When you create a redirect page for an alternative name please add the category to the redirect page to help others find it.

Wikipedia should never be used as a scientific source since it is not reliable, see MEpedia:Science guidelines for explanation and alternative sources.

Can you follow the layout in MEpedia:Article outlines to keep with the standard headings, eg Notable studies, learn more. You can find info on how to do the referencing in the Help: pages. We would normally refer to a specific paper by the first author's surname and year, eg According to Davis et al. (2019)... without the title - all those referred to will be in the references for the reader to find. If the same first author has several published in the same year then use Davis et al. (2019a) / (2019b) etc.

The CS1: Dates error category appears whenever a date in the form yyy-mm is used, just change the date format to be mmm yyyy eg Apr 2020.

If any have any questions you are welcome to reply here, on my talk page or on the talk page for any page you are editing. Thanks again for joining us! ~Njt (talk) 22:37, May 1, 2020 (EDT)

Re: Welcome User:Cipher! -- Cipher (talk) 10:07, May 2, 2020 (EDT)[edit source | reply | new]

Hi Njt! Thanks for your input! The redirect pages category and the wikipedia reference is now fixed. Regarding the standard article outlines with notable studies and so on, how should I go about that? Should the papers detailing the link between CFS/dysautonomia & nutcracker phenomenon go under "notable studies", or under a category just called "CFS & dysautonomia" without the subheaders "paper #1"? What do you think? :)

The dates error category you wrote about I don't understand, I don't see any errors.

Cheers!

Hi. Thanks for that. The MEpedia:Article_outlines#Diagnosis bit gives the minimum headings that are relevant, eg a ME/CFS heading is always included unless it's totally irrelevant. You can also add extra headings e.g. for Dysautonomia or POTS. There will already be info on the Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome page saying how common it is in people with ME or CFS.
You would list the studies under Notable studies without any additional description, for those wanting to read further. (If the authors already have MEpedia pages then you can copy and paste them to author pages too). It goes after the main sections, before See also and Learn more. If some of the key articles are opinion rather than studies, then you might want to call it "Notable studies and publications" or "Notable publications" / "Notable articles" - depends what your topic is really since some don't have treatment trial, studies of patients, etc eg for medical hypothesis.
If I'm not sure, I usually check the layout of other, well established pages that are fairly recently updated. Irritable bowel syndrome for instance. Also if you want to sign and date your comment on a talk page MEpedia will do it for you if you put 4 tildas ~~~~. Colons :: at the start lines indent replies. ~Njt (talk) 13:41, May 2, 2020 (EDT)
@Notjusttired: Wouldn't it make more sense to clump the dysautonomia & CFS into one heading, as the majority of the nutcracker papers covers both?
Should I both list the studies under "notable studies" without any descriptions, and describe/explain them and cite them under the CFS/dysautonomia heading? Cipher (talk) 15:34, May 2, 2020 (EDT)
It is better to have a heading off ME/CFS, and a separate needing of dysautonomia. Under the ME/CFS heading you can then explain if research only found it in people with ME/CFS who also had dysautonomia, or not. Then follow similar for the Dysautonomia - does it occur in dysautonomia without ME/CFS? I haven't read all the papers so can't be sure how different they are, but there should really be a ME/CFS heading even if there are others as well. It's better to focus on the condition rather than each paper's separate findings, since often there are several papers that support the same point or with similar findings. I will get the Notable studies section started off. If you wanted to you could quote from the abstract under each study. There's some in that form on the Neuroinflammation page for instance. ~Njt (talk) 19:46, May 3, 2020 (EDT)
@Notjusttired: You say that it's better to focus on the condition rather than each paper's findings, but don't you think it would be appropriate to describe the few studies that exists? Because this nutcracker CFS/dysautonomia connection is not widely known, explaining the few case studies that exists would be better than just saying that it's linked to ME/CFS & dysautonomia and just list the papers under "notable studies". Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? ;-) (have pretty bad brainfog right now) Cipher (talk) 08:08, May 4, 2020 (EDT)
Notable studies is just a list of the key studies for those wanting to read more. So yes, you would describe the studies too - but they don't need a different subheading for each study. You could use different level headings for pediatric, teen, and adults, or in some other way. But yes to describing the studies, alongside having the Notable studies section. Normally we wouldn't give details like the full title of the study or journal except in the Notable studies list, you would just say something like "Takahashi (2005) found 9 children with nutcracker syndrome..." or "according to Takemura (2005)..." and if they are interested in the study's title they can see it either by clicking the reference link or going to Notable studies. If something is generally agreed upon, and many sources support it then there's no need to write about the source, just add the reference(s) at the end of the sentence. ~Njt (talk) 12:25, May 4, 2020 (EDT)
@Notjusttired: Ok, sounds good. What should I do about the studies that cover both CFS & Dysautonomia, like for example "An effective "transluminal balloon angioplasty" therapy for pediatric chronic fatigue syndrome with nutcracker phenomenon"? Should I describe it twice under both headers? Cipher (talk) 07:48, May 10, 2020 (EDT)
Hi Ciper. I would put that under just CFS I think, since many with CFS have POTS as well. It might depend on the sources though - if there's mention of dysautonomia without CFS I would mention in dysautonomia too. ~Njt (talk) 07:56, May 10, 2020 (EDT)
@Notjusttired: But it seems suboptimal to just put it under CFS and not under dysautonomia when the patient suffered from both CFS and dysautonomia. I have a pitch; one header called "ME/CFS & dysautonomic comorbidities", and one header just called "Dysautonomia". So the papers covering both conditions goes under the former header, and the papers covering only dysautonomia and not ME/CFS goes under the latter header. :) Cipher (talk) 08:46, May 10, 2020 (EDT)
@Notjusttired: I've now edited the page, does it look good? Cipher (talk) 06:18, May 12, 2020 (EDT)
@Cipher: That works well, although try to condense things a bit more. For an complex medical terms or medical words the average reader is unlikely to know, these should go in the Glossary or add them to the request list on Talk:Glossary. Thanks for your work. ~Njt (talk) 17:54, May 12, 2020 (EDT)
@Notjusttired: I don't know how I can condense things more without removing important information. :) I can't add terms to the glossary as I'm not an "established user". Cipher (talk) 06:04, May 13, 2020 (EDT)
@Cipher: Anyone can add glossary suggestions to the Talk:Glossary page (all Talk pages can be edited by anyone). Established user status is based on a combination of the number of edits and age of the account, so you will get it in time. The sidebar link to MEpedia:Pages in need lets you know of which tasks to do for increasing your edit count. To condense things, you can leave out minor details or exact numbers, eg say "more than half"/"most patients" rather than 12 out of 17, you can use bullet points or numbering instead of whole sentences and less direct quotes. I will have a look and see if I can do an example edit. The page is much improved already. Thankyou! ~Njt (talk) 10:01, May 13, 2020 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://me-pedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cipher&oldid=81932"