Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:47, 26 September 2014

Wiki CRUK John, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Wiki CRUK John! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Training opportunity

Hi Wiki CRUK John, per our discussion at Anatomical terms of location I'd like to present an easy and accessible training option for trainees. The guidelines for anatomy articles have recently been changed (see WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy), and we are trying to include a "Clinical significance" heading in all anatomy articles. Under this heading subheadings may include imaging, and the names of prominent diseases. An example may be found at Esophagus#Clinical significance or Pudendal nerve#Clinical significance. Diseases are:

• Presented briefly in general form, with the main features detailed.
• Cited using a reliable source

I think getting trainees to write these summaries is an excellent training opportunity because:

• Describing diseases in general form with reliable sources is often easier and less controversial than writing in-depty summaries, making it appropriate for trainees
• Writing in this way helps users understand the basics (editing, citing, wiki-markup, and wikilinks)
• This can be done in a short timespan without extensive research
• It benefits readers, by linking anatomy structures with their medical significance.
• There is an extensive list of articles in-need, and a lot of vacant wiki-space, so there is a 'Great, I created something!' factor rather than just re-factoring existing information

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good! Is the extensive list actual or metaphorical? It may well be a while before this happens, but I will not forget. The terms of location seem simpler to me, but there is a great advantage being able to give different people an article each. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Great! By "extensive list" I mean any Anatomy article, but WP:ANAT500 is the list of our top 500.--LT910001 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

'Final' video finished

Hey John,

I've cleaned up the transitions and sound on the new medical editor video. I'm still new to video editing but this is as good as it's going to get for a little bit. I saw that you wanted to know when a new version was up, so here you go. Hope it works. Ian Furst (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - feedback after Tuesday. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by

"National Institute for Health and Care Excellence" - should be said this is for the UK, or more accurately England and Wales" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer

Wondering on your feedback on the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving to other account - will look tomorrow Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Brain tumor is also ready for you to look over it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of cancer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreatic cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faces (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. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Leukemia

Have worked on this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

just a few uninvited thoughts

Hello John :) I think you already realise some of the very real practical obstacles in eliciting expert involvement. But if you were able to devise with CRUK a workable way of stimulating some sort of real, constructive participation, I think that could represent a great human resource. Individuals from teams working on a particular topic will be on familiar first-name terms with an entire corpus of relevant primary and secondary sources; this is especially true if they've been involved in writing a review on the subject. Of course, all humans have POVs, and scientists are no exception. Having a basic understanding of how selection of secondary sources that satisfy MEDRS is used by us as a tool for composition of reliable NPOV content would obviously be essential. As would simplicity of interaction, imo. I feel a start could be finding some simple ways of flagging a) outright blunders; b) areas that need more subtle work, in terms of coverage/completeness, updating, correction, nuance, etc. One thing these guys could probably do rather easily is point to specific MEDRS (eg via the PMID, or by citing Author, Journal, year) that could be consulted for improvements. But doubtless you'll have thought all this through for yourself. In which case, my apologies, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the idea. There are various approaches, several of which will be tried. As well as clinical/scientific expertise, CRUK has a lot of in house experience in communicating medical/scientific information in an accessible way, so there are two main fronts of attacking the improvement of articles. Actually, what generally strikes CRUK people who look at WP medical articles is the accessibility issues, and sometimes a lack of encyclopedic balance, rather than "blunders". At the moment I'm doing preliminary sweeps with relatively specialized in house people, to see if there are obvious issues, before sending the articles for more specialized review. So I'm expecting to present review information of the sort you mention to the medical editors, perhaps not always publicly. Language editing, as we've seen all too clearly recently, is not so conducive to online editing, and I expect I'll do more of that myself, working with writers here. The improvement of specific articles is only one aspect of my role, and I'm also trying to entice specialists to edit themselves, although we know the number who will become regular editors is low. Then there's images, and some research we will be doing. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's really, really interesting stuff, John. Including the attention to accessibility issues... I think MEDMOS tries hard, but even with the best of intentions, it's a real problem for us to strike the right balance. (Fwiw, when I made my best attempt in this section to compile reliable information that could be useful and accessible for various types of reader, I found the writing aspect to be a real challenge, and I'm still unsure how accessible the text actually is.) Agree our GA/FA system is not a replacement for traditional peer review -- so constructive expert feedback could be really valuable. I think the idea of behind-the-scenes collaboration is really interesting, especially as it doesn't expect hard-working scientists to come to terms with our quaint ways and confrontational environment. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes MEDMOS is good on what we are not, and "writing for the wrong audience", but not very forthcoming on what we are, beyond: "Misplaced Pages is written for the general reader. It is an encyclopaedia, not a comprehensive medical or pharmaceutical resource, nor a first-aid (how-to) manual. Although healthcare professionals and patients may find much of interest, these two groups do not by themselves represent the target audience." I'd love to get clearer guidance here before I leave CRUK in mid-December. There's also: "When mentioning technical terms (jargon) for the first time, provide a short plain-English explanation in parentheses if possible. If the concept is too elaborate for this, wikilink to other articles (or Wiktionary entries). For terms related to anatomical position, you can link to Anatomical terms of location, e.g. lateral. Alternatively, if the technical word is not used again in the article, it may be appropriate to use plain English and place the technical term within brackets. The etymology of a word can be interesting and can help the reader understand and remember it. Provide links only where they may help the readers and are reasonably focused on the topic." which is of course very often indeed ignored, and perhaps has some issues as it stands. I think we should inevitably often be saying the same thing twice over, once in full medical terminology, and once in lay terms. There are a number of different ways of doing this - at the word or phrase level (which I presume is what MEDMOS is saying), at the sentence or paragraph level, with one of them in a box of its own. I'd like to agree a broad standardized approach for this, but I think this may be difficult. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

All very interesting points, John. I think this exchange illustrates one of the tricky issues: the need to write for different kinds of reader simultaneously. Personally, I feel that whatever we will always be beyond the grasp of many... unless they've got someone beside them to help explain. Fwiw, that's a scenario I'm currently trying to visualize, especially when working on the lead. Personally, I find it helpful. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Which page

Supports "it is second to breast cancer among female-only cancers"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess 1.1 does. Added it with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

CRUK review

Hi John. How's the upgrading going? Can you point me to a list of the first-reviewed articles, please? If any are being neglected, point me to them and I'll be happy to have a go at one. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So far just Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Initial_review_by_CRUK and Talk:Esophageal_cancer#Initial_review_by_CRUK. Lung and brain being done (end of the week I hope), also epidemiology and research aspects separately. Since they've been archived off the Med Project page, I've started a list at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_CRUK#CRUK_article_reviews, but will of course notify the project when new ones arrive.

Both the ones put up have had a decent amount of work done since by other editors, for which I'm very grateful. At the same time they clearly need a good deal more before they can be sent for further review. I think I'm going to have to do much of this, but I can't do it all. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. In that case I might start looking into esophageal cancer, if I can get some textbooks. I'm a 110% supporter of what you're up to here. More later. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be great - the papers listed at the review are mostly online, & there's a ton of good stuff there. I think we need to bring out the difference & contrast between the two main types somehow, at least as regards symptoms, causes and epidemiology. I think the treatment (or "management" as I must learn to call it) is very often the same. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought. I think you've seen what I've put at the top of Cancer pain - the invitation to comment. Would it be helpful to put a box like that at the top of each of the CRUK articles, explaining that CRUK is managing expert review of the article, and inviting readers to offer feedback in preparation for the review?

On Cancer pain, when they follow the link in the invitation box, the talk page "new section" edit window opens, with the edit summary: "We're particularly interested in hearing what's missing or wrong and whether the article is clear and readable, but any ideas on improvement would be welcome. You can find your comment (and others' comments) and any replies by clicking the "talk" tab at the top of the article."

Would you be willing to talk to some journals and journalists about this, and ask for experts to take an interest in these articles? Personally, I think what you're doing here, John, is the perfect response to the scandal generated by that osteopath study and also the most momentous step in this movement since Larry Sanger said, "Let's try a wiki." It's the birth of reliable Misplaced Pages, and I think the major journals and newspapers should give significant coverage to this story. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - certainly. I was thinking I'd try to get some journos along to the pre-Wikimania meetup, or the conference itself, as that's a news hook, for the UK at least. But I'm happy to talk to any others - I got good media coverage at the Royal Society. Initially I'm just approaching experts who CRUK are in contact with (and that's a lot), but also trying to get the articles to a better state before sending them out, which I think is only fair to the experts, and most efficient. That's what I've found works best with experts in other fields. Lung cancer initial review just up. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you like me to gather some names and contact details of journalists that covered the osteopath beat-up? Could someone at CRUK advise you about which specialist journals to write to? I'd prefer to get the publicity now, as it would hopefully drive experts to help with the articles' preparation. How do you feel about the timing? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

For the UK anyway, CRUK have pretty much all the contacts. I should be inviting now for Wikimania; of course if people want to do something before that's fine. I don't think any of the articles are ready for outside review yet, though I hope by WM they will be. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry, I haven't been clear. I'm suggesting doing the press now so as to attract expert editorial input, not reviewers. I understand you and the CRUK are handling the review process. I thought maybe you could mention the articles that are scheduled for expert review to journalists and journal editors in the hope they would pass the names on to their readers, and their readers could help prepare the articles for the CRUK review. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading up on esophageal cancer, but it'll be another week or two before you see much action on the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm concentrating on pancreatic first. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion

John, great interaction with you at Pancreatic cancer. I am a curmudgeon, and anyone who gets along with me off the bat is a Misplaced Pages gem. I'd like to suggest that you have a look at the "Jack Andraka" article, later in the day or tomorrow. (Give me at least a couple of hours from this timestamp, to see the Talk section I add, as a prelude to major editing.) After reading the article, have a look at this source, for balance in scientific perspective: . There are a variety of issues with the article, as my Talk entry (and forthcoming edits) will make clear, but I would appreciate your eventual perspective/edits regarding the fundamental matter of the chosen biomarker, after you see my flurry of major edits appear this week. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter

Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Misplaced Pages available to the world, in the language of your choice.

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

• WHO's list of Essential Medicines
• Neglected tropical diseases
• Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

IEG grant

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Misplaced Pages presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

• Swedish
  Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and 💕 of medical content. We want Misplaced Pages to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
  Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
• Dutch
  Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Misplaced Pages is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
• Polish
  Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Misplaced Pages has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Misplaced Pages does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
  (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
• Arabic
  The Arabic Misplaced Pages community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Misplaced Pages facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short

To come

• Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
• Proofreading drives

Further reading

• Translators Without Borders
• Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Medical Translation partners Translators Without Borders WikiProject Medicine (English) Wiki Project Med Foundation resources Progress (full) Progress (simplified) Babylon Integration guides Misplaced Pages - Translate outreach Editor Outreach Journal outreach get involved Sign up

Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreatic cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMI. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Endometrial cancer

Hi John! I know I said on Doc James' page that I would need a couple weeks to finish up but I've just gone through my last major source for endometrial cancer and am sort of at a loss for where to go from here. Would you or another CRUK person be willing to provide a sort of mid-development review? Thank you so much - and I do understand if you're not available. Best, Keilana| 18:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll get on to it on Monday. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done a quick review for language etc (US-only figures should say so) & a specialist will be looking at it. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Keilana| 18:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings from MrBill3

Greetings Wiki CRUK John!

Thank you for your contributions to WP.

Just thought I'd drop a note Re: our discussion on Cancer screening. I couldn't agree more that there are too few content-adders (sounds like a dangerous snake, I prefer "prose writers"). I do aspire to improving my writing skills and finding the time and drive to add more in content to articles. Despite the fact I am a Registered Nurse in Intensive Care who avidly studies evidence based medicine and critical care medicine in general, I find writing on medical topics challenging (Bios seem much easier to me).

What I do a lot of on WP is verification. I find the sources cited, format them "properly" (IMO with a modicum of respect for CITEVAR) and do my best to provide links that give free access or point users in the best direction for them to find their access options. I also frequently actually read the sources (I have a variety of means of access). It is truly shocking to me how frequently I find sources misrepresented or plainly used to support facts they don't contain. With an interest in both medicine and fringe topics I find myself working on articles that are heavily discussed on talk pages require close attention to MEDRS, or have a single primary editor. To comply with policy (and foster consensus) I frequently post suggestions to talk pages rather than editing boldly.

I also consider myself a fairly competent researcher but don't always have the time or motivation to edit and write prose so I often add references I have found a "Further reading" section (new or existing). I appreciate greatly the work of prose writers and post articles I think are important or in need of revision to Project Medicine Talk or the Fringe Theories NB. I hope my work on sources is of help to those who would do the writing and perhaps over time some editors will find that when I post an article I have facilitated editing by improving sources.

Thanks for pointing to US centrism, I will keep it in mind when researching (I'm thinking WHO, NHS and EU) and editing.

Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks - yes MEDMOS should really have something about nationally-biased editing (usually US but not always). I want to get a page together with a variety of good sources for RS info from the major Anglophone countries, & internationally. For example, for cancer the European Society for Medical Oncology produces guidelines for treatment that are online & authoritative, and have been published in Annals of Oncology. Another thing to do. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Cancer screening. When you have a page with more global resources please ping me (and/or post a notice on Proj Med Talk). I look forward to expanding the international nature of my research. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do, probably on the project. I think it will build over a while - Anthony Cole can add Australia, Doc James Canada etc. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreatic cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Brief chat this morning?

Hi. We'll probably see each other around anyway, but can I have a brief word before 11:00 am? I'll be in Costa's coffee shop from 10:00, or can track you down if you tell me where you'll be. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Key for photo?

File:Diagram showing where the lymph nodes are in the neck CRUK 384.svg note to self Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Medcan Clinic#Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Medcan Clinic#Notability. Cheers!

P.S. I thank you for the input you have provided at Talk:Medcan Clinic already. —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

CRUK images

Hi John! I just wanted to let you know that I've put about 3/4 of the images -all of the obvious ones - uploaded by CRUK into the appropriate articles. Do you know if any more images will be uploaded in the future, or is this it? Thanks so much, Keilana| 04:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, we've had all the body diagrams they have now, but any new ones should be uploaded. Also there will be other types of images, such as infographics. Thanks again for all your work on these! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Esophageal cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Precancerous condition

Hello, I happened upon your edit for article "Precancerous condition" and noted that you had added the statement "After 2005 both the terms have been clubbed together and is now known as potentially malignant lesions." I could not find evidence to support this statement, and was wondering if you could clarify or provide a reference. I have removed the statement in the meanwhile. Thanks! Dr G (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add it, just closed it up to the preceding text rather than being a para by itself. . Wiki CRUK John/Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for thinking so carefully about the way to portray the prognosis in diseases with poor survival rates. Considering the patient and their family as an audience is really important in these situations. I'm glad that you are around helping write medical articles. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 04:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)