This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I saw your edits at Paresthesia. Care to throw your two cents in here? [1] Thanks. Suntag ( talk) 16:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
A page you created, Hepatitis, viral, human, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.
You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.
Thanks. Oliver202 ( talk) 23:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As a template wizard, do you think it would be a good idea to split off a seperate epilepsy navigation box from {{ Diseases of the nervous system}} ? If yes, could you create one? -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you fix the ICD10 code at Acute alcohol intoxication? It's Y91.x, but I couldn't figure out how to make the link work. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
For knowing how to fix the ICD-10 links in the infoboxes, and for using that knowledge to help me! WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
Hey Arcadian, I've just set up a proposal for a new task force in the WikiProject Medicine called FTTF, or the Featured Topic Task Force. We aim to create a featured topic for medicine, most likely to do with an infectious disease of some form (the proposals so far include polio and bacterial infections in general) and become the first medical featured topic. The proposal can be found here and further discussion can be found at the bottom of the WikiProject Medicine talk page. I've very much appreciate your comments and possibly support of such a proposal, if you'd be willing to take part! — Cyclonenim T@lk? 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please edit the template Template:Antithrombotics, because I need to know which drugs from this class are discontinued. :-) Carlo Banez ( talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. :-) -- David Iberri ( talk) 13:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I found howardbloom.net is used as reference in the article War against Islam. Is this RS? I found no editorial board in this site. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping by - its good to know there are wikipedians out there willing to help out those just beginning. Any who, I just wanted to let you know that I copied the article to my personal Sandbox for editing (prior to public release) - User:FoodPuma/Infoboxes. Feel free to make edits there if you wish, I just wanted a place to try changing things without messing up the entire article! Cheers!-- FoodPuma ( talk) 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello again! Perhaps you remember helping me out just a couple of days ago. Well, I've improved some on my article and have now listed it for Peer Review as I prepare to nominate it for GA status. If you wouldn't mind dropping by it's peer review page, you're input would be much appreciated! Thanks! FoodPuma ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please create an article about the drugs gefarnate and teprenone? These are drugs used for the treatment of gastric ulcers. :-) Carlo Banez ( talk) 14:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that you added a "surgical intervention" template to the above article some time ago however quite a number of the links don't work. Could you have a look at it? Thanks Richerman ( talk) 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested to know that I have posted a longer reason as to why I think this gene should be deleted which I did not, through niavity, include in my original arguement. Dpmuk ( talk) 11:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
As a specialist navboxer, I'd like your opinion and maybe copy-editing of {{ Intensive care medicine}}. cheers, -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. I have a trouble because of this ban request at the ANI. Things are getting from bad to worse, with people coming to my talk page to accuse me of WP:COI violations in Biology articles. Could you please look at the article in question and check if it complies with WP:NPOV. WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability? And of course, you are very welcome to fix any problems if necessary. Perhaps I should stop editing political subjects... Thanks a lot. I also asked Tim about this. Biophys ( talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of BBS7, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=BBS7. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 12:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of BBS9, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=BBS9. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that you should become an administrator, only to find you already are! Also, I notice you're a medical student. Are you in the UK? I ask only because I want to follow the same route, interested in your opinions etc. :) Hope everything's okay.
— Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I had updated the coccidioidomycosis page with a paragraph on biological warfare information and you reverted the page to eliminate my updates. The paragraph was purely informative and accurate. My post also had a link to information about one of the new books and if that is not allowed, I apologize, but I still feel the biological warfare information (with the CDC Select Agent home page citation) should stay.
I had planned to update the coccidioidomycosis PRESENTATION section as well to reflect the newer information that emphasizes the severity of the disease. The newer, more severe, information appears in recent works like 2007's "Coccidioidomycosis: The Sixth International Symposium" or 2008's "Valley Fever Epidemic" but I would rather wait to update until after you tell me these updates will not be erased.
Thanks!
Micro2007 ( talk) 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I am actually in school right now and I am doing limited editing as I am short on time. I planned on rewording when I got home, but your keen eye embarassed me! Heh! Sorry for any misunderstanding =) Food Puma 17:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I just saw you now have over 100,000 edits on your name! That is quite an achievement. Keep going! ;-) -- WS ( talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered
Iliopectineal fascia and
Iliopectineal arch and made a merge proposal. As far as I can tell they are about the same structure, but I don't know enough to simply merge them. Is "arch" more common? Hoping you know more, I invite you to do the merge or discuss it on the
talk page.
Congrats to the 100.000 edit BTW, when it comes to human anatomy you are everywhere!
Thanks /
Raven in Orbit (
Talk |
contribs) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd value your opinion here. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I created a new template {{ Diseases of the skin and appendages by morphology}} and put some comments on the discussion page. I plan on using this template as a guide to pages I create/work on. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated (I saw you did some work on the {{ Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue}} template). Kilbad ( talk) 03:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, I created another new template {{ Clinical and histological nomenclature for skin lesions}} and wanted to get some feedback about it. How do you feel about the overall content and organization? Please see the discussion page for my desired scope and rational. Kilbad ( talk) 18:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, it's just me again.
I've been reading a lot on the pelvis lately and I'm increasingly confused. I was hoping maybe you had encountered this problem already.
In some contexts, the
body of the pubic bone is defined as located next to the
pubic symphysis between the two rami, and in other contexts as located next to the
acetabulum laterally to the superior ramus. Here are two examples:
There are many more similar contradictions available. I've been googling a lot to find an explanation somewhere with no success.
I reworked the article on the body according to the information in my Swedish reference (see
this diff), but I then discovered there seem to be different definitions around. Maybe I should revert myself? Is this a US vs. Europe issue? Or older literature vs. newer? The only hint I've been able to find is this brief sentence in Gray's
here, section 16:
Any hint is welcome.
/
Raven in Orbit (
Talk |
contribs) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you moved " Non-small cell lung carcinoma staging" to " Non-small cell lung carcinoma". Have you seen " Lung cancer"? "Lung cancer" comprehensively describes non-small cell lung carcinoma, except for staging, which would unnecessarily bloat the "Lung cancer" article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to make this list more complete, and would prefer to just add diseases to the end of the list instead of looking where to add them within the alphabetized list; therefore, I wanted to know if there was some tag or "something" that will automatically output a list in alphabetical order? Kilbad ( talk) 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
class="wikitable sortable"
. --
David Iberri (
talk) 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you think you could get a few more people to review our discussion on the categorization of dermatology articles? I realize the categorization scheme can be changed in the future, but I would like to get some more feedback before I start categorizing articles based on the current proposed tree. Also, I am almost ready to update the skin disease article with a complete list of all dermatologic diseases, and would like to have category headings on that page that closely mirror the categorization scheme we all finally decide on through our discussion on the medicine talk page. What do you think? Thanks. Kilbad ( talk) 14:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Arcadian. Kilbad ( talk · contribs) has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion, as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Arcadian—I see you just removed "zerenol" from the template. That was probably a typo, it's supposed to be zeranol. I'm not sure it warrants an article, but I thought I'd leave a note just in case you stumble across it again. Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian -- it looks like you did a number of citations for me on the Niemann Pick page -- thank you !!!!!!! -- I am new to Wikipedia as a contributor. Some new research has come out on NPC -- I have posted it on my blog Addi and Cassi Blog and Nature article is here Nature Medicine. Basically, it says that Niemann-Pick disease type C1 is a sphingosine storage disease that causes deregulation of lysosomal calcium that results in cholesterol accumulation. This is new news because the mechanism has not been known -- they talk about myriocin correcting the phenotype. The question I have for you is I am not sure how to best incorporate something like this Nature paper into the Niemann Pick page -- where do you put it? Also, it should go on sphingosine and also myriocin pages and possibly calcium. What do you suggest??
Also, Brown and Goldstein, awarded the famous Nobel Prize in 1985 for their discovery of the LDL-cholesterol receptor and its role in the control of cholesterol metabolism. Much of our current understanding of the impact of cholesterol on cardiovascular disease follows from their work and the multi billion dollar statin industry has been developed as a result of their work. They have released on PNAS very important papers on the regulation of cellular cholesterol metabolism and what they are discovering with NPC1 and NPC2. Brown and Goldstein Paper and Bill Balch Commentary on NPC1 and NPC2.
These papers need to not only be referenced on the Niemann Pick page but also on the cholesterol pages as again this very big news coming out about cholesterol I don't know how to best do this and I need some help by watching someone like you add this in -- then I can learn so when future papers come out how to do it. Would you help me with this project Arcadian? Chris | T@lk 03 November 2008
Hi Arcadian - Thanks for all your updates on the NPC pages, and for splitting out NPC into it's own page/ategory. I had Marc Patterson of the Mayo edit the main Niemann Pick Overview page -- he has been working on this for over 20 years. Also, he is going to review the NPC page to provide input. I am also have other experts look at the pages so they are completley accurate. How can we fix the Wikipedia search -- if you search on Niemann Pick Type C, it does not come up to the new page you created. Is there a way to fix wiki search. I am waiting for some pictures which hopefully you can help me get added in properly. Thanks against for everything! It's such a big relief to actually have accurate information up! Chris | T@lk 05 November 2008
Arcadian: I have made lots of updates to the NPC pages tonight - Marc Patterson from Mayo Clinic sent me all the updates and edited both my page and what you did. These pages are veyr accurate -- some of the medical terms are not even on WikiPedia!! I am still having trouble with referencing papers -- I need more time to learn. Patterson wanted me to change on of our references to make it completely accurate. It's under Genetics on the main NP page
"Mutations in the SMPD1 gene cause Niemann-Pick disease types A and B, and mutations in NPC1 and NPC2 cause type C (NPC). Type D was originally separated from type C to delineate a group of otherwise identical patients who shared a common Nova Scotian ancestry. Patients in this group are now known to share a specific mutation in the NPC 1 gene, and NPC is now used to embrace both groups. The terms "Niemann-Pick type I" and "Niemann-Pick type II" were proposed to separate the high and low sphingomyelin forms of the disease in the early 1980s, before the molecular defects were described
The reference is: (Elleder M, Jirásek A. Niemann-Pick Disease. Report on a symposium held in Hlava's Institute of Pathology, Charles University, Prague 2nd-3rd September, 1982. Acta Univ Carol [Med] (Praha). 1983;29(3-4):259-67.)”
I can't make it work tonight, I am too tired. I hope you can help review both the NP and NPC pages and fix this reference. I am working to gather all sorts of images for the pages to make them complete and current. It would be helpful if you read this and determine other pages that could be linked -- there is a lot of good information here. We need some links into the cholesterol areas.
Thanks - Chris | T@lk 11 November 2008
This user User:Cannibaloki has been reverting all of my edits in the pages related to Iron Maiden, with the excuse that "my opinion doesn't interest him!". There was this version on the lead of Iron Maiden discography here, that needed to be re-written to meet Wikipedia's quality standars. Then after several weeks he re-wrote this lead. That lead he re-wrote had many issues, grammar errors and was longer than it was really needed, because it said some information about every album that was better placed in the album's pages. I re-wrote the lead. Now it contained the most important sentences he had written, some I wrote myself taking other Featured lists as references, and then was copy edited by User:Gary King. He just reverted the edit saying " His opinion does not interest me!" here. I told him to take Nine Inch Nails discography, Metallica discography, and many others as a reference. I can see how mad he is, it was like if he was using blinders, because he doesn't listen to any opinion and every edit I make to that page he reverts it saying it doesn't interest him. I hope you can find the solution to this problem. Thank you.
PD: If you don't have time to take care of this, please recommend me and admin that could help me. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section on 'allegation of cruelty' as subsection under 'criticism' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [2], please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle ( talk) 06:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
...is not the same as N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside, indeed they are entirely different compounds. I'll clear it up shortly. Meodipt ( talk) 23:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm this is quite a puzzle - it seems that both these compounds have been given the abbreviation CACA at some point, and its now hard to work out what N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside actually does, as when you search for that name in PubMed it comes up with a whole load of research which actually uses (Z)-4-Amino-2-butenoic acid! The only paper I can find that definitely uses N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside is (PMID 3440022) mentioning it as a prodrug for cytosine. Another paper (PMID 18685793) says explicitly that N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside is a GABAC agonist but I wonder whether the authors have themselves got the two CACA's mixed up... Meodipt ( talk) 00:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey. Can I ask why you've moved infectious mononucleosis to it's current title? I wasn't aware we were placing virus names in disease article names. I strictly believe infectious mononucleosis is more appropriate, it's aetiology is inferred from the article itself. Although, there are no other causes but EBV. Remember that page moves probably should be discussed first. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your work on these articles. However I just noticed the pharmocology stub category is jammed full with 2600 +!! Could you please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/November and suggest ways in which we can conceivably split this category into more manageable stub categories by specific sub order. Thanks Count Blofeld 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello arcadian, I just edited the article you contributed to about glycopyrrolate to include its other name of glycopyyronium bromide. I was wondering if you could make it so that a search for glycopyrronium bromide would redirect to the glycopyrrolate page. Im a newbie to editing here and dont know how. Hopefully you can help me out. Regards, Shaun3001 ( talk) 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you again for all your help with the dermatology content on wikipedia. With regard to the list of skin diseases, would you support a renaming of that article to something like "Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system"? I would like to rename it to something broader so that conditions of the adnexa may remain in the list. kilbad ( talk) 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you be able to motivate why you reversed the template about cell types? What do you think myocytes are and why do you think they are part of circulatory system? Why then there is such a thing as skeletal myocytes [3]? (unsigned comment, from User talk:96.237.4.57
Evil tendencies are early shown. Vuerqex ( talk) 00:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A hypocrite deceives no one but himself. Vuerqex ( talk) 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :-) It never ceases to amaze me how many new drugs keep on being invented the whole time, but I think we are finally starting to get most of them covered! Good job on arranging them all into categories. Meodipt ( talk) 03:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In the Foreign body you deleted too much ! -- Tamás Kádár ( talk) 16:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am writing about my substantial edit on dietary mineral. This topic sometimes generates strong feelings, in part because of commercialization of dietary supplements and in part because of suspicion of biochemistry by some. So if you strongly disagree or want to discuss what I did, please leave a note here. I have been working intermittently on this article for years, and periodically various exotic elements creep in, like Li, Al, V, Cr, As, Te, Sn, Ge, Cs, Rb, Bi, W. Beats me, but I can only guess that vendors of these supplements are driving such edits, as we found on chromium picolinate, a multimillion dollar product. In any case, let me know. Best wishes,-- Smokefoot ( talk) 19:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Good work adding those references. The are still some issues, especially if tolerance alone is sufficient to declare physical dependence. See Talk:Physical dependence. Xasodfuih ( talk) 05:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, hoping you can explain why our Mitochondrial Disease Symptom Guide for Clinicians link keeps getting removed? Is it because MitoAction is a charity? Because you have to register to view the guide (this is for legal reasons - medical advice, etc etc)? The resource guide is a clinical document written by doctors and we feel one of the best resources online for doctors who often find themselves faced with diagnosing and dealing with this often previously un-dealt with disease. Can you please offer a few words of explanation? (unsigned, from User talk:Accessionmedia)
Would you mind my moving this to benzylpenicillin (the INN?) I hope you and your loved ones enjoyed (or are enjoying :) the holidays. Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've just been looking at the above template and trying to understand it. What is the reason for the ICD-10 field? ICD-10 does not have an interventions classification. Canada, Australia, the UK and the US have all developed their own - none of which are called ICD-10. This is not the same as ICD-9-CM in which the procedure classification is a part of the base classification. The WHO have taken the Australian classification and released a highly simplified version of it as ICHI (International Classification of Health Interventions), but it is really too broad to be of much use on Wikipedia. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad ( talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Arcadian, thank you for your help in the past with WT:PHARM:CAT. Some additional progress has been made with the proposed categorization scheme, and I just wanted to leave a few follow-up questions here, if you had time to give me feedback. However, I have read and appreciate your last post of this thread, and understand if you are too busy at this time to give me a comment!
Some specific question I have for you are:
Well, thanks again for all your help. Also, I replied back with a direct fb link... kilbad ( talk) 19:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response to my request to semi-protect the Template:PBB/7273 page. I was becoming tired of reverting all the "non-word" nonsense ;-) Best regards, Boghog2 ( talk) 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits, not least the section headings. I should try and improve the clinical and patient care parts in future revisions of the article. Courrege ( talk) 01:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The WASH6P article is about a pseudogene and therefore is probably not notable. I hope you don't take offense, but I would suggest that this article should be deleted. The rest of your stubs were interesting and taught me something about the pseudoautosomal region which I was not aware of until now. Cheers. Boghog2 ( talk) 11:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Strombollii from the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 could really use your help on his current project: Osteitis fibrosa cystica. He has had trouble finding suitable information (in both verifiability and quantity) for the topic and is relatively unfamiliar to the style and formating for medicine articles on Wikipedia. As a friend, I told him I would gladly message those who I respected as fellow wiki-editors and who I believed could add to his medicine related article. You, of course (from your help and critizim in Osteochondritis dissecans), were one of my choices. So if you can spare the time, I am sure your help would be much appreciated. Again, thank you for your own help in my article... without you and several other editors, I would have never made GA. Cheers! FoodPuma 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing :-) I came to this because I could not set up {{ Infobox Disease}} on a new article for the new eMedicine website structure. I've now corrected in sequence {{ eMedicine}}, {{ eMedicine2}} and {{ Infobox Disease}} along with documentation & talk pages too (ugh)!
Please have a look at {{ Infobox Disease}} discussion page thread I've set up and improve the documentation if required :-) David Ruben Talk 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Brucellosis vaccine, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/aug05/aug15/Studyaimstofindnewvaccineto.cfm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 03:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Plague vaccine, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.drugs.com/cons/plague-vaccine.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 03:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Yellow fever vaccine, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccineInfo/vaccine_detail.cfv?id=28. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 03:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you catch my note about Amoebiasis at WT:MED? I (respectfully) disagreed with your edits and provided a few sources, but you don't seem to have responded. Entamoeba has asked for MarcoTolo's opinion on the matter—just letting you know in case you missed by original post at the project. Best as always, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at a category renaming I proposed, and adding your input? Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_10#Category:Diseases_of_skin_appendages I ask, because I am most likely going to be proposing other renames in the future, and want to get a great consensus regarding the use of the word "condition". kilbad ( talk) 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice you have been creating a lot of disconnected stub articles about vaccines lately. Rather than creating a one sentence articles that aren't connected to the article about the item being vaccinated against, seems like it might make more sense to add the vaccine material as a section in the main article (with a redirect, as appropriate), until enough material collects to warrant a separate article. (Talking about things like Brucellosis vaccine, Japanese encephalitis vaccine, Tick-borne encephalitis vaccine, etc.)
At the very least, please add links to the new vaccine articles from the pathogen or disease article in question. Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for improving my cite at Dientamoeba_fragilis. Can you tell me what citation tool you use to do this quickly. I still haven't found a good one. I find manually filling in citweb very slow and guess there must be a better way. Mccready ( talk) 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
When you split Borna disease into Borna disease virus, the most natural article name is actually Bornavirus. On top of that, there hasn't been (to my knowledge) a consensus in WP:VIRUS to separate the disease from the disease causing agent, and most of the articles aren't necessary long enough for a split to occur anyways. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 02:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been to WP:MEDMOS and they seem more intent on getting the language right than worrying about how to draw the boundaries for articles. When I referring to other articles, I was a bit ambiguous, sorry about that. I understand why Rabies was split, but the virology section was grossly incomplete and I don't think it was a bit excessive to split it into Rabies virus. IMO the general consensus is essentially implied in WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOFF; however I don't necessarily agree that splitting off the virology would necessarily allow the article to be more focus.
A guideline discussing when articles should be divided and among what lines would be helpful; so let's organize our thoughts before we bring it to the community:
Ok, thanks for clarifying Borna disease virus, I'm actually quite a bit surprised that I didn't catch that, BVD is the species and Bornavirus is the genus; it's even listed in the infobox. Nevertheless, that redraws how we're dividing it, Bornavirus stays as it is; so the only issue left is to CSD move Borna disease to Borna disease virus (BVD is the most likely search term), and then writing a short virology section there. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the first time I have edited a page, so if I mess up please let me know. I am looking at your article on MHC class I, and noticed that you are the author of a change suggesting that sec61 transports extra peptides not displayed by MHC Class I into cytosol. Do you have a reference for this? Bfeuerstein ( talk) 23:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to ask, being part of the Main page redesign proposal, the project is essentially finished except for one issue, which requires a third party to help shed a new view point. This project has been going on for a while, and participation has gone quite a ways down; with this one issue resolved I believe we can get it over with. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was just looking at the infobox that you added to the Zygote article way back in October 2007, and I'm curious about it. Is there any particular reason that the article should have an (essentially empty) infobox? I like infoboxes as much as the next person and I certainly don't want to be overly bold and remove something that has a purpose, but I don't understand it. The main reason I'm wondering about it is that the code has been vandalized (though it doesn't show up in the actual infobox; I stumbled across it quite by accident) and I was about to delete the vandalism, but then I began to wonder whether we need the box at all and I decided to go right to the source to find out. Also, if the box is serving a purpose, could you please explain to me why it says "Days -- 1"? That's stumping me. Thanks -- edi (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete the list of support groups for the external links in this article I do not understand your comment: "Support group links: dmoz, per MEDMOS". Many of these are important sources of information, which is the purpose of this section I thought. I'm going to add back a number of the better of these unless you present some compelling argument otherwise (particularly the National Hemophilia Foundation). Peace, Earthdirt ( talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:ClinicalTrials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Eastlaw talk · contribs 00:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you moved chemotherapy to chemotherapy (oncology). The page is currently about its most common use (cancer chemotherapy), and the intro already clearly disambiguates to alternative uses. Also, the move was not discussed. I've moved it back for the time being. JFW | T@lk 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the chemotherapy article should only deal with actual chemotherapy drugs, but I think the term "antineoplastic" is inaccurate because benign tumours are also neoplasms. The whole world (lay and professional) refers to stuff like cisplatin or daunorubicin as "chemo[therapy]". At the same time, antineoplastic or cancer drug (presently a redirect) would be good container articles to discuss all pharmacological cancer treatment modalities (to the exclusion of surgery and EBRT). Perhaps this is good subject for a discussion on WT:MED. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact, we already have a very good container in the cancer article itself: the cancer#treatment section. Rather than creating more container articles, I have simply removed all the content on targeted therapy and hormonal therapy. Could I recommend that we turn antineoplastic into a redirect to cancer#treatment. The only content in that article that needs shifting is the section on occupational harm from exposure to cytostatics; this could actuall be merged into chemotherapy. JFW | T@lk 10:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there
I removed the image of phytate because it is not the same as phytic acid. The image does not agree with the formula and MW in the box. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've found the appropriate free acid image now, so it's moot. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for quick responses. I think I've now got things set up for those 3 options of killed/inactivated bacteria/viruses, attenuated viruses and live bacteria. If on implementing this it looks all horribly wrong, feel free to revert the drugbox and its /doc to prior verions and we can re-work on this after my holiday :-) David Ruben Talk 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Arcadian, I'm not sure why you changed Chronic lymphocytic leukemia to B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I left a message about it in Talk:B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
There are recent sources that refer to T-cell CLL, so I wonder why you reject them. Nbauman ( talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
S B H arris 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I am at a loss for how to improve the article as it stands. Recently my edits have mainly been focusing on minor copyediting, and at this point I feel as though it's time to jump the cliff and hope for the best. I was advised by my teacher ( JimmyButler) to wait until my diagram images have passed OTRS verification. At that point, would you support a move for FA? Kind regards, FoodPuma 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you look at a thread for me, someone expressing concern about some recent edits: User_talk:Kilbad#Nickcoop.2C_the_GP_from_New_Zealand_is_attacking_the_Mohs_surgery_article_again kilbad ( talk) 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sclerosis (medicine), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Sclerosis. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you've edited this template several times. I'd appreciate your input here on merging Skin ulcer and Ulcer (dermatology), and how to handle the link in the template. Thanks! -- Auntof6 ( talk) 06:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to know if the you would review a recent CFD I posted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_21#Category:Endocrine-related_diseases_and_the_skin. I am looking to get more opinions. kilbad ( talk) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you a US medical student? If so, have you decided what you want to go into? If not, can I talk you into dermatology? Maybe you can do an away elective at my academic institution in Chicago? ;) kilbad ( talk) 15:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian: I am adding links in the lysosomal storage disease area to The Children's Rare Disease Network and now I see that these links are not up after I spend considerable time putting them on Wiki today. I added the links which are appropraite for people who suffer from rare diseaes, especially the children's diseases. This is a non profit organization that is the main hub for families who are dealing with rare diseases of all types. Some of these small rare disease states do not even have non-profits supporting them and they have no money -- The Project Charity -- The Children's Rare Disease Network will be the main non profit for families and kids to go to for support. Some diseases only have 200 kids worldwide -- certainly not a community and this is why I need to put up so many links. It's not like added links to the Cancer Page to the Cancer Society when millions are affected. This is the umbrella organization supporting Rare Diseases of all types. This site needs to be added to all the Rare Disease pages that are under represented -- this is their organization. Would you be taking down links to NORD if I put them up on Wiki? I read the rules and it appears to be appropriate given the nature of this organization and how rare each disease is. It's going to be lots of links for lots of different obscure or rare disease, many which have no organization support. I am a volunteer for them along with many other families who have children with rare disease. Chris | T@lk 26 February 2009
Please see my comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:CNS_diseases_of_the_nervous_system My status as a wikipedia dissident unfortunatly dictates my use of IP addresses rather than an account. Thanks 79.72.116.123 ( talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!) |
-- ~~~~
Maen. K. A. ( talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 07:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Its the Cookie Monster (
talk) has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Imagine heart failure split into systolic and diastolic halves, then ponder each half split left and right. Mathematical models come to mind in an equation stretched over 70 years in good health. Adolph Fick first introduced Cardiac Output readily echocardiographically extrapolated to Ejection Fraction. (unsigned, by Lbeben)
Hi. I note that you created the Babesia article. This page has been heavily edited by a temporary account (‘Nmunabi’) who apparently has knowledge of the subject. (I am not an expert in this area.) Yet he/she destroyed all the wikilinks and all the inline references. I don’t understand why. I reconstructed the references before realizing quite what had happened. So my question to you is, were this guy’s edits useful, or vandalism? What was he up to?
Appreciate your insight at the article talk page. Earthlyreason ( talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, how are you, i think its very short article, please try to add more to it, so it will not be deleted by other editors, from other wikiprojects than medicine, for me i appreciate the importance of every contribution to the project Maen. K. A. ( talk) 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
why there is no article?? I guess many lines can be written about this subject Maen. K. A. ( talk) 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Please reply to my message on my Talk Page. |
Hi. In the course of typo fixing just now I came upon this article and corrected several typos and made links in the last paragraph. Looking at the whole article I then noticed that (a) this paragraph was out of place, (b) it was added only four days ago by an IP who has no other edits, and (c) though it seemed to make sense, it wasn't clear to me that it was directly relevant to the article. I see from the history that you have edited the article and are maybe qualified to decide what to do about this addition. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 16:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)). I'd recommend throwing a fact tag on it, and then see if the author comes back. --
Arcadian (
talk) 16:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I know that this is getting to be a bit of an issue again, but I oppose the split in Hepatitis B virus. Described in greater detail in the discussion, I think we need a clearer line as to when a split may be done. In my opinion, including the virology along with the medical aspects and so forth is an effective method of allowing the reader to see the entire subject, before they specialize into what they're looking for. Obviously there are some limitations to that, such as audience sophistication—as whether or not the can actually understand the section Microbiology. So I believe we should hold off on dividing articles unless it proves necessary. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
In the last few weeks anonymus users made several attempts to write new data without source. Plese help (for example: you could partial block this article so only users with account could change this article).
Sunset2007b ( talk) 07:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I left a response to your comments and am ok moving forward with the categorization of pharmacology articles. kilbad ( talk) 17:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was cleaning up some of the templates in the category:medicine templates and came across {{ Protbox disease}}. I am not sure what it's purpose is, but it doesn't seem to be used for anything at this point. Since you originally created it, thought I would ask what it is for (if you remember way back when), or whether it should just be deleted at this point. (Didn't want to propose it for deletion if still useful.) If still useful, maybe we could add a line or two explaining purpose? Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 09:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was puzzling over why the article was moved from "Turbinate" to " Nasal concha", as I am long familiar with the former but not the latter. (Also, I googled both terms, and "Turbinate" gets about 10 times as many G-hits.) The name change isn't mentioned on the talk page, but I finally spotted the page move in the edit history, with your edit summary, "more general term". Could you take a minute and elaborate on that? Thanks! Cgingold ( talk) 02:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for turning my attention to that, and i moved it here :-) Maen. K. A. ( talk) 20:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the work on this, however I am wondering if the splitup is not into to many articles. From the nonpuerperal section, some forms have common aetiology/pathogenesis including treatment, likewise much of the literature applied for several sections at a time.
The classification in medical literature is so ambiguos and overlaping that separate articles may make sense by lexicologic or historic criteria but not otherwise. I started working on an overview of classification section recently, somewhat of a nightmare. For some authors everything is duct ectasia while other like to classiffy it into single atoms and german or italian publications use their own scheme.
Lots of stuff went missing in the splitup? From the nonpuerperal section you have retained the more exotic parts, the ordinary unspecific nonpuerperal mastitis is completely missing (or maybe that is part of the classification problem?) as is the overview of pediatric issues and mastitis neonatorum that was at least mentioned in the introduction.
If you have any thought on this please move the discussiun to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mastitis
Richiez ( talk) 18:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Referring to your offer at WT:PHARM:CAT: Could you move Category:Immunosuppressive agents to Category:Immunosuppressants and Category:Chemotherapeutic agents to Category:Antineoplastic drugs?
Also, do you know of an existing category to move to Category:Drugs for endocrine therapy? – I don't want to create it without getting a second opinion. Cheers -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I replied to your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Looking_for_opinions_about_category_names. Thanks again for your feedback. kilbad ( talk) 14:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
During the course of editing these past several weeks there have been a few issues that have come up, some of which I have posted at WP:MED, but all of which still need someone to sort through. Perhaps you could look at the following items and make any changes as you see fit:
Ok, thanks again for your help. --- kilbad ( talk) 06:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
Hello Arcadian. I noticed you've created a lot of aldehyde dehydrogenase gene articles, and I think you deserve a barnstar! Rosiestep ( talk) 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
Please visit User talk:NifCurator1. I believe your knowledge of {{tl:Infobox Disease}} would be invaluable. LeadSongDog come howl 18:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian.
Now that there are a number of selective ligands for neuropeptide receptors, I decided to make a navbox to link together the pages so far. However on completion of this box I am thinking some of these peptides like cholecystokinin are not really neuropeptides and are more peptide hormones, and so should perhaps go in your peptide hormones template instead?
I'm a bit unsure as many of these peptides like
Corticotropin-releasing hormone have multiple sites of action throughout the body and brain and so do not fit neatly into either category...your advice, suggestions etc would be appreciated as always.
Meodipt (
talk) 13:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ Neuropeptide agonists and antagonists}}
{{ Peptide hormone agonists and antagonists}}
Oh yeah obviously there will be redundancies in time, I just wanted to get a navbox or two made as a base to expand on. I was thinking whether I should make seperate boxes for e.g. "neuropeptide agonists" and "neuropeptide antagonists" like how there is for serotonin but decided against it for now, mainly because for technical reasons almost all drugs targeting these receptors so far have been antagonists, but I felt it would be more helpful to the reader having the endogenous agonist listed alongside. Can always be split later anyway if heaps of neuropeptide agonists get invented. Agree that these navboxes may grow quite large with time considering how many neuropeptide GPCRs there are which have yet to be studied in detail!!
Meodipt (
talk) 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey... When you did this edit you removed the main reference on PETN (Cooper's book) which was not in a ref tag above, but merely listed in the references section.
Please be a bit more careful...
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 19:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings your magnificence (anyone over 100K worth of edits gets a title; at 150K, you get a toaster).
I've created the above page and asked for a comment at WT:MED#Doege-Potter syndrome, but what I'm keenly interested in will be how it fits into the myriad template navboxes you created. Since that seems your purview, would you do the kindness of selecting an appropriate one or selection?
Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
If available, your comments would be appreciated regarding 3rd and 4th level ATC categories. --- kilbad ( talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
100,000 Edits | ||
I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________ |
I have a dispute with another editor. Your comments would be appreciated. Meodipt ( talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Antidepressants template
I'm sorry. I use broken English.
Which classification system are you using?
I think that your classification system is similar to Thomas Cavalier-Smith.
This classification isn't universally accepted.
A few classes are doubtful and probably should be left off.
Moreover, Thomas Cavalier-Smith includes Dictyoglomus and Thermotoga in Posibacteria(Unibacteria). But, your classification includes Dictyoglomus and Thermotoga in "outer membrane present".
Instead, I plan to use Bergey's Manual. -- Krclathrate ( talk) 18:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I used Gracilicutes and Terrabacteria in Japanese wikipedia. Thank you!
I want to use Eurybacteria. However, I hardly know Eurybacteria. Please teach me the research of Eurybacteria. -- Krclathrate ( talk) 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Arcadian!
Checked your AR and ARP (also seen as AR% or EF etiologic fraction) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ARR_RRR_worksheet, values are correct but they only make sense for risk reduction (ARP gives the portion of cases attributable (and avoidable) to this exposure in relation to all cases). You might want to remove the -300% and add this explanation to the ARP-page, too, otherwise the value of -300% is quite confusing.
In the case of risk reduction the value of PF preventive fraction (or preventable fraction) = 1-RR (or 1-OR) would be correct to use.
Also the question of "how much is enough" arises, because we could start adding PAR and PARP/PAR%... which brings us a long way from the initial (simple) example ;)
T.pienn ( talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Set the (mathematically correct but practically unused) 300% to N/A, included PF instead.
T.pienn ( talk) 10:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Created the accompanying article to preventive fraction. Have a nice weekend!
T.pienn ( talk) 11:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Axillary a.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Common Good ( talk) 19:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Were you planning to update the links to Amoeba to point to the new location? I can do so if you like. – xeno talk 13:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | Amoeba proteus, previously Chaos diffluens, is an amoeba | ” |
The link provided, is to a disambiguation page. Is our dear reader to guess which of the links on the page the Amoeba proteus is? Is it a software company? A distributed operating system? Perhaps, rather than speaking in vague language you could tell me a better target for these links rather than inappropriately pointing our readers at a disambiguation page. – xeno talk 18:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
From Seven Seas Lagoon:
“ | Swimming was also allowed in the lagoon until it was discovered that the lagoon was harboring very dangerous amoeba Naegleria fowleri | ” |
From Paramecium:
“ | Giant amoebas, for instance, have types of endosymbiotes, | ” |
From Boiling:
“ | Boiling water for a few minutes kills most bacteria, amoeba, and other microbial pathogens. | ” |
Hi Arcadian, thanks for the good work here, I just want to ask you why did you redirect Arcella to Arcella hemisphaerica? And I noticed you also created many similar redirects. I am afraid I am strongly opposed to this type of redirects. I think leaving them as red links is the only (efficient) way to encourage other editors to start new articles on them; redirecting for the purpose of turning red links into blue kills that courage because it suggests the page does not need to have an article on its own. Mxipp ( talk) 18:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You do know that these were not orphaned references but a "Further reading" section, right? :) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 03:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your reason is for undoing the work that I did on GM2 gangliosidoses. Why don't you explain in the talk section for the article. Metzenberg ( talk) 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I gave up our dispute and left it to you (with a slight tweak to the disambig page IIRC). But today I did notice an IP has made a few changes ( Special:Contributions/69.86.152.95). This strikes me as a step backward, could you take a look? Best regards, – xeno talk 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Vaccines&diff=next&oldid=273827499 That seems to put it where I hoped it would go. Midgley ( talk) 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Anybody mind if I spit out the biological role? There's a lot more to say about it, but it's hard to expand in its current location. -- Arcadian ( talk) 15:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
So many users in that page keep on putting false claims about Regine Velasquez' achievements and talent, to the point that they make up fake 'achievements' about her so-called 'reign'. Velasquez is not famous all over the world, she has not sold one million records all over Asia. They keep sensationalizing her page by writing over hyped and false claims such as having a 'palatial house', albums selling over 10X platinum, that Regine rejected the Miss Saigon role, and so much more. Thank you.
Hello, you and/or an issue you have been involved in is being discussed at the administrator's noticeboard here. Tan | 39 15:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Glad we're moving forward... I just thought perhaps we could hack out what links to disambiguation pages you feel are appropriate. For example, in the most recent case, when the disambiguation page was at the primary location, Stropharia then linked to a disambiguation page when it should have linked to acanthocyte (mycology) [5], no? – xeno talk 17:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"The page at Michael Dobbs is about the primary topic, and there is only one other use. The other use is linked directly using a hatnote; no disambiguation page is needed." (emphasis mine)
Basically, it's all messed up taxonomically and systematically. I write you because I saw you disambiguated Cryptochloris, which is good, but that genus is apparently preoccupied by some grass (I suspect it's a junior synonym of Chloris or some other Chloridoideae). But online sources wildly vary. I'll try and figure out what's going on here; recent studies do not use the genus name for a cryptophyte, but the latest Cryptomonas revision does not figure it in the synonymy either. It might belong to the synonymy of Plagioselmis (which as it seems is much closer to Teleaulax than to Cryptomonas). In any case, I think if the homonymy is as given in the Index Nominum Genericorum, I should be able to figure out where the disambiguation ought to point to. That is the easy part...
The "Cryptomonads-haptophytes assemblage" infobox is in need of a major overhaul. The Pyrenomonadaceae (which lack Rhodomonas in the list) are the only family that any recent study finds to be monophyletic, the rest is just a mess. Pyrenomonadales would, if valid at all, be monophyletic. Here is what according to what I have seen (basically every study published within the last 20 years that has some phylo data on Cryptomonas at least) is the baseline phylogeny.
What should be done? The German Wikipedia for one is better here, and as I may well be tied down with a cryptophyte killing spree (all in the name of science) for the next half year or so, I might give it an overhaul eventually. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 12:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your rebranding of the cell wall antibiotics template to cell envelope antibiotics and the corresponding article. Is this a real distinction? It seems the polymyxins throw a spanner in the works of the accepted grouping. I notice though that the polymyxins fall into "J01X - Other antibacterials" section. Perhaps that template should remain cell wall inhibitors given the size and importance of this group, while these tricky cell membrane antibiotics would be added to the "Other" template. What are your thoughts on the distinction? (btw, they have all been extremely useful while recently revising for my medical pathology exams, so thanks!) |→ Spaully τ 23:36, 28 June 2009 ( GMT)
Hi, how are you doing??... I want your help in continuing the GA review for hypertension article, as the original reviewers seems busy, and had not commented for a while, and actually I put much effort for the hypertension article, from this to this, so I don't want it to fail, so please continue the review yourself or recommend a new editor to continue that :-) MaenK.A. Talk 16:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. The other compounds I had added redlinks for make up the remainder of the anabolic steroids prohibited by law in various Australian jurisdictions, and prohibited from use by athletes by the Olympics and other sports bodies. Some of these compounds are as you point out very obscure and do not have listings on PubChem, but still their legal prohibition alone gives them grounds to be deemed notable and encylopedic. Not too bothered whether the redlinks stay on the template or not, but I will add pages for them as I find references, ethyldienolone for instance. Meodipt ( talk) 03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of P wave (electrocardiography), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.wtv-zone.com/MARCEY/EKG/ekgcycle.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 02:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Age Ageing. Since you had some involvement with the Age Ageing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thinking of England ( talk) 09:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
We had a stub at this name, sadly useless, but should we have an article there? Or maybe a redirect? Many thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC).
Can you let me know what you think about the redirects to the disambiguation page you created? I've started a discussion topic here. Thanks! Dekimasu よ! 05:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
If "computed tomography", "CT scan", etc. almost always refer to X-ray computed tomography, lets move that article back and put the disambiguation page at Computed tomography (disambiguation). There are over 900 links to the disambiguation page at Computed tomography, but there's nothing there now to help the end user (or someone trying to disambiguate links) figure out which type is intended in any given context. I'm not sure the disambiguation page is fulfilling its intended use as a navigational aid here. If you object, please let me know, or at least visit the talk page I linked above. Dekimasu よ! 06:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of merging A to B (an article you created hence why I am messaging you) based on the articles similarity with each other. The giveaway was the alternate name given in the cerebellothalamic tract. However, that page is unreferenced so I am unsure how accurate the info is and hence whether it should merge or not (in addition to the merger, a few of the other names should be made into redirects as well). Finally, if it is to be merged should all the info that is not on the main page be merged as well (or not?) considering it is unreferenced? Your opinion (or better yet, you agreeing and merging the articles!) would be great. Kind regards. Calaka ( talk) 08:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Rhizaria, a taxon within the Protista, essentially emmends the Class Rhizopodea and too belongs at the rank of taxonomic class. Rhizarea (ex-Rhizopodea)unites three groups that are thought of as orders, the Cercozoa, Formaminifera, and Radiolaria and falls within the concept of the phylum Sarcodina.
Reverting back from my taxobox edit of 9/21/09 simply reinstates an inaccurate and misleading picture.
In June you edited the Template Animalia, which ended up with Lophophorata appearing twice. I have tried to correct this, but I don't know if it's correct. You might want to check. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 15:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Back in May 2007 you unredirected the article Galactan from Galactose. Since then the only edits have been bot ones, and none in the last year. Unless there is a good (i.e. scientific) reason why this one sentence article should not be redirected again to Galactose I think it should be done. I will leave the decision (and action?) to you. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The article EMedicine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Chzz
► 10:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated EMedicine, 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/EMedicine. 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. Chzz ► 21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm editing an article about my department in Paraguay that is the Misiones Department. I'm having a problem with the infobox. Hope you can check it and help me. Regards.
Hey, just a quick thanks for the good job that you have/are doing on Template:Cerebral cortex, its on my watchlist that's all ^_^ I would love to give you a cookie (::) because everyone deserves to feel appreciated, Regards, Captain n00dle T/ C 18:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- I've been noticing your good work on neuroscience articles -- in this case though I'm having difficulty seeing any justification for having an independent article here, as opposed to a redirect to serotonin. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 03:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (PS, consider archiving some of the old stuff on your talk page?)
How is school? Did you get your Step I back? Any thoughts about pursuing a derm residency? Feel free to drop me an e-mail if you need any help with the residency application process.
Also, I have no doubt you are busy with clinicals, but if you have some time, perhaps you could help us with the Bolognia push 2009? I can e-mail you the login information for the online text, plus it would be a nice intro to derm for any future electives you choose to do.
Just a thought... --- kilbad ( talk) 21:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you care to provide an oppinion to a query over at the Tubercle of the femur talk page? Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 00:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a courtesy note to let you know that I've changed Brain infarction to redirect to Cerebral infarction instead of Infarction. Best wishes. Neurotip ( talk) 16:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Good evening, Arcadian! I've started a duscussion about the three growth factors listed in the hormones template. You may be interested as author of numerous (great) templates. Best regards, -- CopperKettle 19:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I'd just like to say I completely disagree with your merging of the tricyclic antidepressant and tetracyclic antidepressant articles and I'd like to revert the changes. Thoughts/opinions? el3ctr0nika ( Talk | Contribs) 02:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just to let you know, I tagged Cerebellopontine angle with {{ copyvio}}. It looked too good to be true so I googled a random sentence (in quotes) and it brought up this page as an exact match. Just to let you know. Best regards, Captain n00dle \ Talk 17:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it was great meeting you the other day!
Also, I had a question... with regard to the condition balanitis plasmacellularis (see the actual stub for all the synonyms), my understanding from looking at Bolognia and Andrew's is that it can affect the glans penis or the vulva. Bolognia discusses the condition under the header "Zoon's Balanitis/Vulvitis." Therefore, I wanted to know if the article should be moved to another title that includes both the words "balanitis" and "vulvitis", and, if so, what the title should be? --- kilbad ( talk) 20:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You removed varicella from the list of exanthems in this revision [6] I am looking at the same text mentioned on the talk page (Murray et al) and it is certainly listed as one. Also, if this was intentional, you should probably remove it from the prevention section as well. Thank you JoshuaTree ( talk) 02:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Well done for this very clever circumvention of the thorny copyright issues! [7] JFW | T@lk 19:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Those would be J. Urol. and J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. Since you were never notified, I was wondering if you'd like to opine. For the relevant page, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 26. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
How's is it going? How is school?
Question: Would you consider moving Cherry hemangioma to Cherry angioma (or to any of the other diease synonyms: De Morgan spot, Senile angioma). I think the term angioma should be used, not hemangioma. Perhaps the term cherry hemangioma should not even have an article/redirect? Any thoughts? I will e-mail you the Bolognia login if you would like to investigate the issue in that particular source. --- kilbad ( talk) 05:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I see you have replaced the reference to Terminologia Anatomica's description of "limbic lobe". I don't have access to any edition of the book at present. I've searched Google's scan of the 1998 edition but can't find its description of the limbic lobe. Are you able to get an edition and page number? If it's a hassle, don't worry. I go back to uni' in a couple of weeks. Cheers. Anthony ( talk) 17:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have incorporated it as best as I can. Anthony ( talk) 03:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There appear to be two articles with the same enzyme name:
It seems to me they should be merged into one article. (Is there some reason they are separate?) I'm not sure I have the expertise to do it, but I would be willing to try. (You look to be pretty busy!) I'm guessing the first name would be the preferred one, so it should probably be the destination page? -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Neutropenia , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiral5800 ( talk) 13:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I've started a list of the articles we should aim to include in the first wave of this project. We are aiming to start off by transferring about 100-200 articles into about several developing world language Wikipedias. It will hopefully expand after that. I've started a list here User:TimVickers/Article list. Please add articles that you think will be useful, and of reasonable quality. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Heparin/GA1. It appears that large parts of the article are copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The article Bacillary peliosis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Mod MMG (
User Page) Reply on my
talkpage. Do NOT click
this link 07:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by to thank you for moving/renaming "Ocular oncology" to "Eye neoplasms." I never liked the previous name, especially since ocular oncology is a discipline and not a condition, and I'm glad to see the improvements in citations and links. Mdonken ( talk) 17:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
All new research refers to it as BPS or BPS/IC. See for example PMID 20025029 ► RATEL ◄ 05:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the Javier Arias Stella DYK nomination is good to go. :3 Silver seren C 13:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 09:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting idea, this (and similar edits). What do you think about expanding the abbreviations? They might seem a bit cryptic to the newcomer. Regards, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 19:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know, I nominated the page you created Extends for deletion, in case you wish to comment. Dew Kane ( talk) 04:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It is very sad that the zonule of zinn's article is 2 lines long. I tried to start a comprehensive article, both physiological and historical (with the appropriate references) but was deleted in its entirety by Lox, which I undid... and then again by you. Please let me know which portions you consider copyright violations (and why). Maybe we can figure a way to get this info out there. I studied the zonule for years, and was the first one to use eSEM to study the zonule. I have been published in peer reviewed journals on the subject, and wish to contribute to the wikipedia project. I even have some amazing eSEM images to share... Please advice. (Unsigned, from User:AnBeCa)
Hi Arcadian. I agree that my inclusion of Cingulate sulcus in the merger of Cingulate gyrus into Cingulate cortex was over-enthusiastic – thanks for your attention to this.
It does raise an interesting issue though: 'sulcus' may refer either to a 'depression or fissure in the surface of an organ' (as defined at sulcus), or to the cortex contained therein. This leads to oddities such as the current text of Superior temporal sulcus: 'The superior temporal sulcus is the first sulcus inferior to the lateral fissure. It is involved in the perception of where others are gazing.'
Do you think this is potentially confusing? If so, should this be explained at sulcus, or should each '...sulcus' article be reworded, such as 'The cortex within the STS...'? Or am I making something of nothing? (I suppose 'gyrus' has an analogous pair of meanings, and that doesn't bother me so much for some reason...)
Thanks for your input as ever. Neurotip ( talk) 08:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I found a format that doesn't use extra vertical space. Please let me know if there's anything you don't like about it. — Codrdan ( talk) 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Can you explain the revert you did to the article??, and I cant understand why you didn't notify me before reverting my edit. please replay to my talk page MaenK.A. Talk 21:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ Myeloid blood tests}} is really very badly named. Nobody calls these tests by that name - it creates a level of organisation that does not exist in real life. Perhaps you could find a way of naming it better, but please change it. At any rate, coagulation has extremely little to do with myeloid lineage tests, unless you want to make it all dependent on platelets being myeloid. Again, wouldn't you prefer to organise this in a slightly different way? There are enough coagulation tests to put them in a separate box. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Arcadian-two comments - I noticed that you had added the ref for discontinuance of mivacurium in the US - that is not true in fact. It is still available in the US - it is just that it is not promoted heavily as it once was in the 90s - primarily because Glaxo got out of the anesthesia market in 1998/1999 - although the company still markets the portfolio including mivacurium in the EU. I therefore would like to have that false reference removed if possbile. Secondly, I have added material to atracurium, gantacurium and mivacurium - but I am handicapped by the lack of knowledge on drawing chemical structures on Wiki to illustrate some of the textual information - how can I solicit help from someone with this? Is there a sandbox equivalent for drawing chemical structures on Wiki? Thanks-- Sanjay ( talk) 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!-- Sanjay ( talk) 00:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
er excuse me. Its a cheek to merge these 2 templates without any prior discussion. You need to make the case first and it needs to be supported by others. I created template:ICD-10 personality disorders and did a lot of work on the template:DSM personality disorders.-- Penbat ( talk) 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I see that you undid my redirect of alcohol dependence to alcoholism. Currently the alcohol dependence article has listed ICD10 which says that dependence on alcohol is alcoholism but you say they are not the same. What difference is there between alcoholism and alcohol dependence in your view?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I was wondering what you thought about moving Pulvinar to Pulvinar nucleus (of the thalamus)? I was going to place it on Wikipedia:Requested moves, but I figured you could move it over the redirect if you agreed. Thanks. Cmcnicoll ( talk) 03:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The Medicine Barnstar | ||
You deserve another one because of your tireless and valuable contributions (especially the navigation bars). |
Mikael Häggström ( talk) 05:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I put a comment on Talk:Cortical blindness about your suggested merge (am I supposed to let you know here as well?) Silas S. Brown ( talk) 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
i just posted an insignificant little blurb there. by the way you do great work.
Hi Arcadian, you split out the toxicology section of several articles. My question is now was this near 100% removal necessary? The chromium article staes now that III is not very toxic while VI is carcinogenic. This two sentences are a little weak for a Goodarticle on chromium. The link to a Hollywood movie Erin Brockovich was left in and this is for the toxicology of chromium the for me least important fact. I would like to have a little bit more than two sentences on toxicology in the article. The splitting of articles for example arsenic and radon was done when the health part overwhelmed the rest of the article not at a point where it was a equally represented section.-- Stone ( talk) 21:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. You asked a question on the Davis Bacon articcle about where the act was codified. The answer is 40 U.S. Code §3141. Hope this helps!
Wildcard6 ( talk) 11:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hiya again Arcadian. I noticed that this article is mispelt. Barbituate overdose It should be Barbiturate overdose but I am not an admin so I cannot move the page over the redirect. I believe that you are an admin, perhaps you could fix this issue? Thanks.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you consider adding small one line intros to the new subsections of List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Parasitic_infestations.2C_stings.2C_and_bites? --- kilbad ( talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thanks for all your work on the template, it looks impressiive. due to my own form of dyslexia I do not do any text editing if I can help it, I just do the research and provide the information and references dolfrog ( talk) 17:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
How's school going. Any developments on what type of residency program you are looking for? --- kilbad ( talk) 18:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
You may want a navigation template just for the palmoplantar keratodermas. Just a thought, but they can be fairly overwhelming for an editor. Also, if you want my Bolognia login, just let me know. --- kilbad ( talk) 01:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you consider adding your cutaneous condition navigation templates to the bottom of the list? I think that might be another nice improvement. What do you think? --- kilbad ( talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I sort of liked the nav box for diabetes. I am not sure how this could not be seen as the main topic area? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I posted a tread at the medicine talk page. Is that possible? Could you help me? --- kilbad ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I tried updating the Template:Bleeding worksheet and making it more user friendly. I also added the template to the wiki page for each disease listed as well as the 4 coag tests. I'm not 100% fluent in wiki-formatting, but i gave the table my best shot with adding the v-d-e and the sortability etc. Plz lemme know what you think. Thanx, a fellow med student AZDub ( talk) 20:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi the table you removed was added after a discussion here, so please give us a reason why you removed it?? MaenK.A. Talk 10:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Could we talk about their placement in the lymph-related category before you remove them? --- kilbad ( talk) 01:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I managed to expand your one sentence article Epidermophyton floccosum to start class and nominated it for DYK. If you want me to add you to the credits, let me know. I was also wondering if you could find anything else to add. Joe Chill ( talk) 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion page for Laryngopharynx, as my proposed change affects an edit you have made a couple of years ago. Plamoa ( talk) 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rickettsia japonica, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.cfsresearch.org/rickettsia/research/diagnostic-assay-rickettsia-japonica.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 02:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, before I undo what you did, why don't you explain why you made the changes you did at Palmoplantar (including the move)? Why do you think it is inappropriate to call it a list of conditions instead of a disambiguation page? It's not a disambiguation page because none of those conditions would be called just "Palmoplantar." Making it a list of conditions provides a solution for anyone who does try just searching on that term. Propaniac ( talk) 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arcadian. Could you or do you have the capability of seeing deleted pages? If you would be so kind as to go to the deleted content of my subpage at User:CircafuciX/Lyrics and email the content back to me. I don't want to sound like I didn't understand policy but it was deleted because it was unacceptable for wiki since I released those rights to creative commons as poems/lyrics. I only wanted them there temporarily but never found a site to my liking where it can be more private and whatnot. Just so you know, I was here for about three years so I'm definitely not new to this process. Much appreciated. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 23:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you did all of the leg work on this template. Nice work. I'm a bit confused on why the Internal and External Jugular Veins are not listed as tributaries to the Brachiocephalic and Subclavian Veins, respectively. Should this be added or was it intentionally omitted because they are in the emissary vein template? Adamlankford ( talk) 08:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Arch Phys Med Rehabil and many other similar journals. Since you had some involvement with the Arch Phys Med Rehabil redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer ( talk) 23:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Wonder if I could get your opinion here [8] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The page has been moved four times now. Hope it stays put. Thanks again :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Trendelenburg's test , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Captain n00dle \ Talk 13:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I expanded the article IFAA. I would like to know your opinion. Thank you.-- Giselle Chamorro ( talk) 19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. Just to let you know that I've changed Thrombocythaemia to redirect to Thrombocytosis instead of Essential thrombocytosis. It just seemed more appropriate to me. Do you agree? Neurotip ( talk) 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Since you created both pages, it seems a good idea to ask for your input. What do you think about merging MPA into MP? There's some background information here.
Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the formatting and changes you made to the article, it was a great to find it all neat, tidy and logical. Blackash have a chat 11:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could explain why you reverted my edits to Template:Alcohol and health and if there was a legitimate reason for doing so? -- Monterey Bay ( talk) 22:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I wonder if you could take a look at Diverticulosis, an article which you worked on last month. The bulk of this article has been written by a single editor, who clearly knows his subject. However, he seems unfamiliar with the formatting of references and other Wikipedia formatting details. The references he provides are numerous, but he has left numbers to them littering the article, and the bottom of the reference list has a link to his user page. I'm a bit of a novice myself at such things, or I would attempt to fix these myself. Also, I have almost zero medical knowledge, so I'm reluctant to change the content of the article for fear of introducing factual errors. I have made a number of punctuation, spelling and grammar edits, but I think that's about as far as I can go with it. One last thing I should mention, if you do decide to edit the article, is that you may find yourself dealing with an "ownership" issue. Thanks, and cheers! -- Captain Infinity ( talk) 17:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. What do you think of changing "Never to Phase III" in the above template to simply "Development terminated", so it can be used for drugs that went to phase III but no further (such as torcetrapib and tasosartan)? Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 03:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Medrogestone 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. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Contribs
Muslim Editor
Talk 07:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mastitis , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Richiez ( talk) 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've nominated Medrogestone, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 10:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC) (By the way, I'm not exactly happy with the hook. Maybe you've got a better idea.)
Poo attack by SPA + sock (probable) at CP/CPPS. Broom needed. Thanks. TickleMeister ( talk) 09:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I e-mailed you. Again... --- kilbad ( talk) 22:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know if your the right person to ask, but I need help. I edit on an anime wiki, and I'm trying to create character infobox and episode infobox templates. Please Help. User:TheDarkSwordsMan
A discussion has begun about whether the article James Renner, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Renner until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Muboshgu ( talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You have the most edits on Urinary bladder so it seems appropriate to notify you of a requested move of Bladder (disambiguation) to Bladder, that some editors see as affecting Urinary bladder. Discussion is on Talk:Bladder (disambiguation). 69.3.72.249 ( talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The ref says "Pharyngitis is an inflammatory illness of the mucous membranes and underlying structures of the throat. The clinical diagnostic category includes tonsillitis, tonsillopharyngitis, and nasopharyngitis; inflammation also frequently involves the nasopharynx, uvula, and soft palate." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi !
Since you're the creator of a Google books template I'd like to make you aware of the following discussion:
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 16:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am a foreigner and a simple reader of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your job. Frankly say, Editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim, is in a wrong way, by colluding of some editors and admins there. Their IDs are: Therexbanner, Gladsmile, Narking, Christopher Connor, RobertMfromLI, NickCT, Beetstra, 7. These Users are trying by reverting correct edits of the article, and doing a sort of anagram and "misusing" information in sources, show Mr. Andre Geim (winner of 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics) is not a Jewish and he has another ethnic. They seem like pure (but a bit hidden)vandalism. All correct RS sources, like:
- http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1,
- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/,
- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/
- http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/07_a_3426604.shtml
- http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/osztaly/kemia/ih.pdf
- http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html
- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/
- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/
- …
clearly show that Mr. Andre Geim is a Jewish (he repeatedly mentioned about his Jewishness, [subject of self-identification]) in ethnical point of view and his family was originated from Germany(he also several times mentioned that his family are German [origin]). Nowadays German is a general word, which could means: Citizenship, Nationality, Origin, residentship, and so on. When Geim is taking about German being of his family, clearly and logically he talks about their origin before emigration to Russia. There is the same situation about Richard Feynman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman. By the way in a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, (that several times misused by above Users) Geim also said a story concerning Jewishness (clearly in religious point of view) of his grandmother, that of course it doesn’t mean that only his grandmother was a Jewish. Now in article as I checked the history of the article, above Users by reverting the correct edits there, try to present and show by their wrong way Mr. Geim an “ethnic” German person. The point is that in any RS sources, Geim hasn’t say that he has such ethnic, and he never used word “ethnic” there. Andre Geim won the Nobel Prize in the beginning of October; unfortunately, right after his winning until now, above Users kept the text of the article in a wrong position. In any case, if you have time, please check this Users carefully. By the way USER:Gladsmile, repeatedly reverted and undid the edits there, without any explanation(even wrong one). Personaly, seems like an extrimist Vandalism. Best Alexander468 ( talk) 17:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, You might want to edit List_of_ICD-9_codes_001-139:_Infectious_and_parasitic_diseases too (for a start), since you reverted my edits on the V codes page, which where providing exactly the same kind of links and, I believe, quality information. ComTeam 06:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey thanks for pitching in Arcadian! Wish I had the time... Cheers, Matto paedia Say G'Day! 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to ask someone about an issue I've had, and I rather randomly turn to you - it's not because you're near the beginning of some alphabetical list =-) The thing is, I've updated this image,
File:Surface projections of the organs of the trunk.png. However, to me, it looks flat now, for example in the articles
celiac artery and
human rib cage, because it has a different
aspect ratio. However, do you find the image abnormally flat in
celiac artery and
human rib cage as well, or is it just me?
Mikael Häggström (
talk) 10:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I was wondering if you could help me out. Now that Lymphoid is a disambig, several templates need their links fixed:
Could you take care of these? I'm not sure what's best. Heck, if you could just leave a note saying what should be used in each template, I'll be glad to do the editing. Thanks, -- JaGa talk 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Je vous remercie,
Votre utile, donner les moyens,
Et comment votre cœur généreux
Votre affiche désintéressement.
Je vous remercie pour votre gentillesse,
Je n'oublierai pas de sitôt;
Vous êtes l'un des plus belles personnes
J'ai jamais rencontré.--
180.191.54.108 (
talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Why doesn't the opioids template belong on ATC code N02 ( [9])? Just curious. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I hope this isn't a bother, but I was wondering if you have an opinion about the use of Thiokinase in the template {{ Lipid metabolism enzymes}}. Is it correct for it to link to the disambig, or should it link to a specific thiokinase? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 00:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It makes sense to have a separate article for intravascular lymphoma (IL), as not all intravascular lymphomas are B-cell derived. The reason I merged in intravascular large B-cell lymphoma (ILBCL) is-- it is very stubby... and I thought one stubby article is better than two.
ILBCL is not a synomym for IL as you imply by your edits. The article I cited (Wang et al.) makes this point as it attaches intravascular to a T-cell neoplasm. The fact that some people use IL and ILBCL interchangeably doesn't prove the point either-- it just means there is confusion in the literature. The one reference you provide [10] makes the point that the markers (T vs. B) aren't that important-- it is really the fact that they buggers are intravascular... which is also the clinically relevant point (as with no discrete mass lesion + non-leukemic-like blood results = hard to diagnosis before autopsy).
There is precedent in WP for this: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). HL is a category that includes NLPHL and classical HL (which is further subdivided in nodular sclerosis HL, mixed cellularity HL, lymphocyte rich HL, lymphocyte poor HL). On WP, HL isn't broken down into classical and non-classical (which are the clinically relevant categorizations). It is HL and NLPHL.
The article intravascular lymphoma was not created as a specific diagnostic entity; MEDMOS doesn't apply here AFAIK. Further, not all articles are a specific diagnosis with one clear etiology, e.g. cirrhosis. Nephron T| C 03:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. Good work on the Template talk:Organelles template to better represent undulipodium. I have an additional question that I will put on to that Talk page. I hope you will read it and respond. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 14:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. It makes sense to split alpha and beta thymosins. However the title of the section on betas should be beta thymosins, since the article is about a diverse family of proteins and not a single substance " thymosin beta". As something of a Wikipedia novice I do not yet know how to edit this myself. Jgedwards ( talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Jgedwards ( talk) 01:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi... I have reported the page hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 30 as I suspect it contains material lifted verbatim from copyright sources. I am notifying you as I notice you have made several edits to the article, though my report does not raise concerns with any of your contributions. I am inexperienced with copyright issues, and I am wondering about whether the article can be saved or if it will be necessary to restart from scratch (assuming my concerns are found to be justified, of course). I invite your comment on my report at the copyright report page. EdChem (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
A 2010 Cochrane review has just come out and wondering if you could comment further [11] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. Regarding {{ Cytoskeletal proteins}}, could you let me know which Light chain should be used in that template? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 16:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice job on the template, btw! I think you used the cell surface receptor deficiency template accidentally on the MAIS, CAIS, and PAIS pages. I got your back, bro. Jonathan.Marcus ( talk) 11:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
No!!!. This will keep us both busy for a while ;-) Boghog ( talk) 21:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Chimeric-humanizedmonoclonals. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Chimeric-humanizedmonoclonals redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). The same applies for the other monoclonal antibody template redirects that are superseded by your new navboxes. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 08:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. Thanks for your work on Ciliopathy.
I do, however, have a question about your recent edit to remove Category:Genetic disorders from the article. Your rationale was that it was redundant to the Category:Ciliopathy which you recently added to the article (and I believe you created that category as well).
I'm not much of a Wiki-knowledgeable person on the whole category thing, but I can't see, through looking at the category tree, where Category:Ciliopathy is necessarily a part of, or subset of, Category:Genetic disorders. That being the case, I can't see how the GenDisorders cat was redundant. Can you help me understand this? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 17:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian,
A while back I posted a merge proposal to merge Cleft hand into Ectrodactyly, following some comments made by another editor at WT:MED. No-one commented either way, other than me - even though I advertised the proposal appropriately. I came back to it today and had another look, and now I feel its part of a bigger problem. I still believe the two articles should be merged, and since no-one cared to express an opinion either way, other than me, I figured I should just go ahead and be bold. I started thinking that there should be some sort of umbrella article on hand deformity, and I found the stub you created last year, which only includes a link to Madelung's as an example. I don't really think that's such a great example, btw, because Madelung's is really a distal radius/wrist deformity, but that's just me being pedantic. Then I found a redirect from hand deformities into hand which had a pretty uninspiring list of conditions therein. I started expanding this a bit, but decided hand deformity is really worthy of its own article, at least to serve as a classification and starting point for readers to explore from. Considering everything that could potentially come under this umbrella of hand deformity, it could become a fairly substantial exercise of collating, linking, merging and redirecting! You may be aware I tend to edit here in a fairly intermittent fashion - too much going on IRL to dedicate time consistently - so its something I could plug away at from time to time, or I could publicise it as a collaborative thing at WT:MED, or I could just invite interested editors, like you, based on the histories of the atricles involved. I'm wondering what your opinion on this is, because you seem to have some interest, and because over the years I've been coming and going here I've noticed your approach to WP seems reasonable and well rounded. I look forward to hearing from you. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you. Matto paedia Say G'Day! 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC) BTW, this page could use a bit of archiving! Cheers, Matt
You may be interested in a discussion of this on my user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for removing all but one of these templates. There was a recent change to the template that has created a reference below the reference tag which causes the page to have issues and wind up in no refs backlog. Found on the first one that it was a reference and adding a ref tag below it worked because there were no other references on the page. We hope ( talk) 23:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you were wrong to remove the disclaimer I added to this template. In the section Eukaryote#Phylogeny there are five cladograms shown. (One could add a few more from the plethora of papers around, but it seems to me that five is enough to make the point: there is no consensus.) The template more-or-less corresponds to the first two cladograms (full references for all cladograms are in the article). It does not correspond to the next three, none of which show an "AH" grouping, as they keep the Chromalveolata+Rhizaria together. If there is any kind of consensus in very recent papers (2009 onwards) it is probably against the template's splitting off of Hacrobia, which is supported only by older papers. Hence I think it is quite misleading to show the template as though it is an agreed consensus classification when it is not. I certainly don't wish to enter into an edit war over this, but I think there are good reasons for a warning of some kind at this point, rather than a different template. Why do you think a warning is inappropriate? Would you prefer a changed template? Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Are some of your cutaneous condition-related templates ready for primetime? I would love to have them at the bottom of the list of cutaneous conditions. Thoughts? --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 01:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for this article, Phaeothamnales, that you created? It links only to an ncbi page, not authority for taxonomies at all, and that page gives your wikipedia article as a reference. I cannot find a single google book or scholar source, and all of the web pages I have looked at (not thorough) reference your article which references the ncbi which references your article... Please help by providing a reference, off-line references are okay. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 15:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You created this article on the Phaeista saying it is a "grouping" of heterokonts, from the literature you cite in the article. The abstract and the information from google scholar appear to indicate this is a clade, not a group, from a segregation initially done by Thomas Cavalier-Smith in 1995. The article you cite appears to only remove two taxa, not to disagree that it is a clade. Please post responses on the article talk page; I am cleaning up someone else's algae mess, so I'm not posting this where it belongs, the article talk, and notifying you, just to try to finish one thing. Thanks. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 15:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ditto above for Chrysista. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 16:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey -- I notice you do a lot of anatomy picture uploads from Gray's anatomy. I need a picture added so that I can use it in the newly created Underwood's septa article but I don't know how to work out the licensing -- it's the first picture that comes up when you search google images for "maxillary sinus septa." If you could help, that would be of great service. Thanx in advance for your consideration! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking some at the ACHOO syndrome article and I saw your merge from December of Photic sneeze reflex. That certainly was necessary as they appear to have been almost identical articles. Did you have to merge in other articles, or were they simpler redirects (there are at least three other names I can see for the same phenomenon)?
I was planning to clean up a few things on it but wondered your thoughts on that. For example, the spreading disease section. It appears to draw the conclusion that this condition causes sneezing, and because sneezing can cause disease, this condition can spread disease. The citation provided, however, doesn't make that conclusion; it only supports the latter point.
I would like to know what you think. Shadowjams ( talk) 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to ping you about the talk on nicotinic antagonist. 98.204.241.151 ( talk) 17:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lodger (Finnish band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lodger (Finnish band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MikeWazowski ( talk) 00:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny ( talk) 02:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I recently tried to improve the citations for Low residue diet based on internet sources. While I was able to find support for much of the article, a lot remains to be cited. Since according to the article history, you were the original author for most of its content back in 2005, I was wondering if you would happen to still have whatever sources you used at the time on hand? If you do, it would be much appreciated if you could add references to it, to help flesh out the article's sources.
Thanks, bd_ ( talk) 22:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trophic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trophic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Muhandes ( talk) 07:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Penile diseases, 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, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the
the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
50.80.139.102 (
talk) 17:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This move broke several transclusions of the template as articles are using {{glands}} which then became a double redirect ( Template:Epithelial types → Template:Epithelium and epithelial tissue). Just something to watch out for! Cheers Jebus989 ✰ 20:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you look the navboxes at the bottom of the p53 article? I can't figure out why 2 of the 4 navboxes aren't showing up correctly. Thanks. Cmcnicoll ( talk) 21:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Wondering if you are in support of the image of a person with CF or a diagram for the lead? Your comment was not clear. Thanks -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Wondering if we need the word intervention on its own line? We do not state disease or symptom for the other boxes thus IMO should not here for consistency. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Looking at where this is being used. Is MRI really an intervention? More of an imaging technique nothing is done. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've been invited to participate in mediation over the content User:Carolethecatlover wants to change in the Dyshidrosis page since I have reverted it more than once. I noticed you've reverted the same content recently, and it looks like you have medical experience that might be significant since the dispute is allegedly over Carolethecatlover's expertise, so I'll invite you to visit the case page and indicate whether you'd like to participate or not. Thanks! — Mu Mind ( talk) 11:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the purpose of this edit? It seems to only add a bit of cryptic display code whose function I do not understand. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 18:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I have recently created the above infobox which I have used here at Complete blood count. Still have stuff to fix. Do you have any further suggestions? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at Template:Breast cancer? I think there is potential for expanding it (e.g., to include Breast MRI and other screening procedures) that it's time to convert it over to the usual format. What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
You recently added SCnc and MCnc to molar concentration and mass concentration_(chemistry). I've studied chemistry, and I've never heard of these abbreviations. Are they really used? Maybe in your field, in medicine? Also, apart from the wikipedia article, a google search for "SCnc concentration" only yielded 1 single page where this abbreviation is used. I think the current location of the abbreviation is too prominent. Maybe something like this would be better:
"In medicine, the abbreviation MCnc is sometimes used for mass concentration"
RolfSander ( talk) 14:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Charles Franklin Hoover has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 09:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You've recently redrafted the Periodontology template and lots of things are now missing. For instance, one would think that the internationally recognized categories of periodontal diseases would be found within the perio template, but they are now not there. Could you explain, please, why it was changed so dramatically? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 06:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a great way to deal with external links. Wondering if we should look at applying it almost universally for medical pages? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Category:Cardiac procedures and surgery, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. NW ( Talk) 00:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
It is important that useful external links utilized by patients and caregivers not undergo blanket deletion on an arbitrary whim. The links provided are not meant for self promotion but serve as a crucial conduit for additional information, as well as medical second opinions for patients and families. Please refrain from arbitary deletion of external links , as you are frankly doing these patients a terrible disservice. I am happy to educate you about the importance of these links, especially the ones in the US. Thank you for considering this important request. Anirban Maitra, Professor, Johns Hopkins University. Amaitra1 ( talk) 01:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)amaitra1
You made some major changes to the RTA page a couple of days ago-not all of them have made it clearer in my view. I'd favour a merge back of the parts you split off-but would be up for a discussion/opinion gathering exercise.Cheers FelixFelix talk 09:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey Arcadian, where can we find ICD-9 codes for certain conditions online? Thanks Dr. Persi ( talk) 23:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious why you moved the French Paradox article to use a title in lowercase. I've reverted such moves in the past due to prior discussion on the article talk page. The view on the talk page (and also, I recall, among the Wikipedia Wine Project participants) is that this is a proper name rather than a generic term. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 13:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I'm wondering why you removed
this category from the article since it is a degenerative nerve disease. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I've reverted your removal [14] of Category:Neurobiological brain disorder from Oxygen toxicity as I would think that it fits the inclusion criteria for that category ("Any condition that affects the functioning of the brain and may be caused by genetics, metabolic, endocrinological, auto-immune, infectious agents, agents, extreme environmental factors triggering biological changes, or other biological factors are included.") and is not in a sub-category. Let me know if you don't agree. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that quite a few appropriate categories have been removed with HotCat (a semi-automated tool, IIRC) under your username. (Removing Hematology from the Eosinophilia article, etc.) Is this a technical issue, or some policy that I'm not aware of? Ronk01 talk 15:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian,
Just wondering why you removed Category:Medical treatments from Ketogenic diet. I think this is an appropriate category, though a more specific sub-category of that might be Category:Medical nutrition therapy, which doesn't yet exist. Thoughts? Colin° Talk 11:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Haemodialysis-associated amyloidosis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit
the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. I would suggest merging with a page based on
Haemodialysis
The.aviation.expert (
talk) 08:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
You updated the tables but not the the reference. Could I ask you to update the reference to the 2009 paper also? I am still awaiting a reply from Prof Notrangelo as to when the latest classification is to be published. JFW | T@lk 05:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Saw you removed the references to the categories Hematology and Congenital disorders. I think this is not right. 1q21.1 deletion syndrome can have a direct influence as a blood disease due to the fact that the TAR-genes are involved. Patients can have trouble with their thrombocypts, which appears to me as a blood disease. 1q21.1 deletion syndrome is a problem that starts at the moment of conception. So, it is definitely a birth problem in my opinion. What do you think? Regards, SpelgroepPhoenix ( talk) 08:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You started the article. I've now completely reworked it -- take a look! Nephron T| C 05:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian Thanks for adding the image in the Myoadenylate Deaminase Deficiency page. I found an similar image on several different websites that would be very helpful in understanding the article, but have not been able to find anything relating to copyright, and don't know how to upload images yet either. Could you please look at the following URL and let me know what you think? http://textbookofbacteriology.net/metabolism.html Thanks, Tom
Thanks! Tom Hi Arcadian I found an image on ChemWiki that would work, and the license is listed as: UC Davis ChemWiki by University of California, Davis is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States. Could this image be used for the AMPD1 article? If so, could you please insert it? I don't know how yet... sorry, but intend to learn with time. http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Organic_Chemistry/Organic_Chemistry_With_a_Biological_Emphasis/Chapter_10%3A_Phosphoryl_transfer_reactions/Section_10.2%3A_Phosphorylation_reactions_-_kinase_enzymes Thanks, 67.189.56.3 ( talk) 12:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Tom
Hi Arcadian. Would you mind taking a look at the new article antihypotensive agent? It seems to me that it might be duplicative of existing content, but I'm not sure. Also, I created Category:Antihypotensive agents to go with it, but can you also check if it is necessary and if it is categorized correctly? Thanks. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you re-worked cardiac amyloidosis.
Why was senile systemic amyloidosis (SSA) merged into the hereditary TTR form of amyloidosis ( transthyretin-related hereditary amyloidosis)?
AFAIK, SSA does not have mutated transthyretin - as per Westermark et al., who I had cited in the (old) SSA article ( old version of SSA article). OMIM seems to also state this. [15]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I think the redirect was in error --unless I am missing something.
Above stated... all the cardiac amyloidoses look the same at the light microscopic level. Ergo, the image I took of SSA could be borrowed for the hereditary form of TTR amyloidosis... until one of that specifically can be found. Nephron T| C 03:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree - split them into two different articles. I don't know how to do this - I'm a newb med student that noticed this studying for my final tomorrow. 161.253.113.170 ( talk) 20:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
What about subpage? Bulwersator ( talk) 07:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Please join a discussion ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. Presto54 ( talk) 07:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
In various places you have deleted a number of links, and replaced them with DMOZ refs. (Example: "melanoma" Revision Revision as of 23:37, 8 August 2011 (→External links: el -> DMOZ, per medmos) -- might be the next one), but you haven't added the removed links to DMOZ. This results in silent information (specifically link) loss, and should be prohibited. Please either add the removed links to DMOZ, or put them back into wp in cases where you have removed them. This ought to be general policy for all wp editing that replaces hard links w/DMOZ links.
Hi, I was trying to update our page on cAMP receptor protein, but noticed that there seems to be a problem with the refseq link. In particular, it should point at the refseq database, not the UCSC genome browser. Do you know what the story is? I saw this was previously discussed on the template's talk page, but still wasn't sure. Thanks! SocratesJedi | Talk 23:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You were not notified, I see, but an article you created on Trematode infection has been blanked as a copyright problem. Because you weren't notified, I'm relisting this one. Generally we don't look at listings until a week after the author has been notified, but under the circumstances I did look to verify that the IP who blanked the article has cause for concern. He does, as aside from a few words, the content is copied from its source.
I'm actually wondering - especially given that the date the source was accessed predates the creation of the article by a good span of time - if you split this from somewhere and forgot to attribute it.
There is no doubt that they predate us, [16]. I have not been able to find anything to verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain. If it is, of course, we'll want to provide full attribution.
If you have anything to add about the situation, please either place it at the article's talk page or at the current copyright problems board listing, at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 October 31. :) Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:NCI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator ( talk) 10:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the Olivopontocerebellar atrophy article and, in particular, my comments on the talk page? My impression is that unlike the term Shy-Drager, which has been deprecated, OCPA continues to be a frequently used term, but one whose meaning has changed from a particular disorder to a term denoting the degeneration of neurons in specific areas of the brain (regardless of the disorder causing this degeneration). Thanks, Sjsilverman ( talk) 20:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for creating this template. An excellent idea. DrMicro ( talk) 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I have altered this template to use the hlist class as described in WP:MEDMOS. This has involved some slight changes in presentation (the retirement of the → symbol as a list separator). Lmatt ( talk)
Dear Arcadian,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 04:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Low vision, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jonathan Deamer ( talk) 21:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Last month you commented here that Taylor should have to make a case on why Wikipedia would be better by having articles removed before doing so. He has created a page and without using Template:Moveto or actually participating in any discussion with the community about whether or not it would be good, has changed 10 distinct muscle articles into redirects to his new page. This is being discussed at Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand#Merge. I personally like the new page but I don't think it is a replacement for the 10 previous articles. I believe we have lost important information in doing this, and bots have already redirected all the muscle pages to his new article.
I reverted the redirects because I and some other editors (Xris0, Fama Clamosa) have voiced disagreement with it, but he has reverted that and once again removed the articles and changed them into redirects to his new page. I had at the time attempted a compromise, by adding a link to his new page on all 10 of the articles, but that was not enough. I am not sure what to do at this point, it's exhausting to go through and restore the redirects, and if he keeps changing them back, there would be no point fixing the old redirects since bots love to go around and 'update' them (which causes problems).
In reading his reasoning (he has requested we discuss it on the new article's talk page) do you think he's made enough of a case for it? I personally found it helpful how the old articles had images with the muscle highlighted, it made understanding where it was very easy. Y12J ( talk) 17:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm starting to get a bit sick of discussing arguments for and against this merger. As you're an admin, how do you suggest we proceed, short of hiring a team of lawyers versed in Wikipedia legal history? Thanks for your time and effort! Manfi ( talk) 10:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to keep posting, but I have submitted a request for mediation, as you probably are aware of. Manfi ( talk) 17:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You last reverted me on the extensor muscles several hours ago without adding anything to discussion. Do you intend to discuss this, or do you intend to edit war?—And again, you've marked them as minor.-- Taylornate ( talk) 14:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You are an administrator. You know the rules. Stop reverting without discussion.-- Taylornate ( talk) 01:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I replied to your message at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Fama_Clamosa_reported_by_User:Taylornate_.28Result:_declined.29.-- Taylornate ( talk) 03:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I kept coming back to the rectus femoris/quadriceps analogy, but your highlighting of the multiple characteristics and ways to group muscles and the movie analogy here seriously is perfect and made me literally LOL. BTW you have talk page stuff from 2008 still here. Would you be averse to me archiving some of it? Y12J ( talk) 20:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Besides the diff you linked, thought it might be useful to link to the archive where the completed discussion can be viewed:
This is an incident which might be relevant for mention in future mediations. Y12J ( talk) 21:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Xanthosine monophosphate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanthosine monophosphate until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at Prostaglandin D2, which is an article you contributed to. [17]. An editor just asked for help in revising info in that article, but seems to be info from just another research paper that more was about publicizing the authors. [18] Thanks! -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 15:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll probably get accused of 'canvassing' again by conveying this, but the MediationBot here said the following:
So as such, I hope you do not take offense at the bypassing of this bot exclusion through manual editing notification. You are the third person listed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. As an administrator well versed in the issue your contribution appears valuable. Here is a copy of what the bot posted on my page:
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the request for comment has also been closed. Y12J ( talk) 03:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The article Silandrone has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Ipatrol (
talk) 00:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. Would you mind providing a reason for your block of the above user? That would make it easier to assess and respond to their unblock request. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 16:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Your talk page is nearly three hundred sections, when your block expires it would be nice if you could extend the common courtesy of archiving it or removing stale threads. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
In the light of this discussion, please be warned that any further edit-warring on any of those muscle articles will be met with blocks. Please seek dispute resolution via the steps outlined at WP:DR if you cannot get a consensus on the relevant article Talk pages. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I've just expanded Disease#See_also, and it occurs to me that it might be appropriate to have a navbox to tie together all these pages on the various classes of diseases. I'm sure there are more out there. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Since you have been heavily involved in the medicine navboxes, I just wanted to let you know that some of the navboxes for drugs have been replaced by very different boxes from Wikiproject pharmacy. For instance {{ Estrogens and progestogens}}, which has been removed from the pages where it was used, and replaced with {{ Estrogenics}} and {{ Progestogenics}}. Likewise for {{ Androgens}}. You may be interested in discussion of the replacement and new templates here Template talk:Estrogens and progestogens. Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 07:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi This is becoming too silly. Alexia is an acquired dyslexia and not a condition so what is all this nonsense about. Miss leading and miss informing readers. dolfrog ( talk) 23:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
i read your entries in the discussion in the article "Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak". i have interest in correcting the misnomer, removing the word "spontaneous" from the article title and putting it in its proper place as a categorization of csf leak and description of certain pathology to the condition. would be interested in your feedback in the discussion under "Move and name change" in which i just posted comment. -- Mr etler ( talk) 17:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Anti-inflammatory products has been nominated for merging with Template:NSAIDs. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 16:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on GJA1, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. kashmiri 23:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
While investigating
Wikipedia:Help desk#Regarding 2012 mesh terms I saw you have updated the default year in
Template:Infobox disease several times, for example in
[20]. It currently says 2011. Should both years always be the current year? {{CURRENTYEAR}}
does that: 2024. Maybe it's better to update it manually if somebody remembers it in early January but it may be forgotten.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 18:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
hey love your page hit me up whenever sexitay;*p 17:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC) |
Hi
I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.
Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.
Hope to see you there! -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 21:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Beryllium poisoning , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Scray ( talk) 05:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cannabis withdrawal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Cannabis withdrawal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. petrarchan47 t c 07:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
hello, I need your help with this little problem..
as you can see, there have been some inconvenintes, that truth is if they are doing well or poorly, they closed my discussion on the "talk page" practically because they want to, or they are right? thank you sir. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Years back you started this article. I do not know what to make of it, so I need your help here. I started an article on paratubal cysts and would think that hydatids of Morgagni (HoMs) should have a paragraph in this. As paratubal cysts have an ICD9 code, HoMs then have the same (as larger lesions or lesions that could lead to torsion need intervention). HoMs are represented in the recent medical literature and of interest as a possible problem. Now, where does "vesicular appendages of epoophoron" fit in? You may see that I first tried to place HoMs into it, but VAoE is shown as variant of normal development and has no apparent clinical issues that can be referenced. So it made more sense to keep Homs within the paratubal cyst article, as a special variant. Are VAoE and HoM really the same - HoMs do not seem to be derivatives of the epoophoron? I have never come across the term "VAoE", the references of the article do not work out, and I do no find articles about it? What do you suggest? Ekem ( talk) 02:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chlamydophila is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chlamydophila until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Arcadian! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doc, please see Template talk:Mood disorders. Can you help sort this out? Mood disorder topics need better disambiguation from bipolar disorder topics. Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You created this article in 2010. Please note that there is now a deletion discussion for it.
please take a look at the article international hepato-pancreato-bilary (sic) association. that's the problem - biliary is misspelled in the title, and, although i should know how to change it, i don't. the external links include a website, where it is spelled correctly. danke. Toyokuni3 ( talk) 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For the the great medical article work you have done. Hope to see you around more. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hi, To you it might take a long trip down memorylane, but once you added some chemical formules to the lemma Heme, table "Major Hemes". In the lemma several chemical formulas are presented in a way suggesting there is only gross counting of the atoms present in the molecule. To me as a chemist the form used is rather strange. Carbon and hydrogen are menthioned first, as expected, but rest of the atoms I expect in alphabetical order of symbol. Is there any reason, biological, medical(?) to use a different order? If not so, I think I will feel free to write them in a more chemical way: eg C49H56O6N4Fe would change into C49H56FeN4O6. No big deal, but never the less. T.vanschaik ( talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!
If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I see you contributed to the Cardioplegia entry.
Now there is clearly something wrong in the following paragraph, which is incomplete in at least two points, perhaps the remnant of an unfinished edit:
"and then cold cardioplegia is given into the heart through the aortic root. Blood supply to the heart arises from the aorta root through coronary arteries. is in diastole thus ensuring that the heart does not use up the valuable energy stores (ATP- adenosine triphosphate) . Blood is commonly added to this solution in varying amounts from 0-100%. Blood acts a buffer and also supplies nutrients to the heart during ischemia."
However, I am not knowledgeable enough to fix it. Can you do it, or find someone who can?
Andreas Carter ( talk) 09:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arcadian, Sometime ago you edited Dichotic listening and Dichotic listening test, i have just come across a new article Dichotic Listening which almost replicates the Dichotic listening test article. As an admin you would be best able to resolve this problem dolfrog ( talk) 21:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pro-Football-Reference.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Football-Reference.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I am not quite clear, for what reason you have separated ultrafiltration and ultrafiltration (industrial). I would like to merge this two articles. Regards -- Peter in s ( talk) 07:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The new black is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The new black until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 12:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes! Please enjoy this cute kitten as a gesture of admiration for your tireless work on the Wikipedia Med and Neuroscience templates. I am constantly amazed by how these all fit together and it must have required a lot of effort.
LT90001 (
talk) 20:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Superciliary arches, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 13:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)
Hello WP:ANATOMY user! This is the first of what I hope will be ongoing quarterlies, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage
I would like to take some time on this first quarterly to evaluate the state of the project. We have the benefit of having a relatively-small group of articles that are, for the most part, relatively non-controversial. Additionally, for the majority of our articles, it may indeed be possible to create an article that reflects a significant proportion of the published literature. This is quite distinct from other projects.
However, it appears we only have 5 GAs ( Anatomy, Brain, Clitoris, Human tooth, and Leonardo da Vinci) and 4 FAs ( Immune system, Hippocampus, Cerebellum, and Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom), none of which relate to purely anatomical items, which constitute most of our mass. By 'anatomical items' I mean muscles, nerves, bones, blood vessels, veins, foramina, and so on, that constitute the vast majority of our articles. In fact, we only have one 'system' ( Immune system) at FA class, and none at GA class. We indeed only have 70 articles out over 4,000 at B-class. This scarcity is, I believe, for the following reasons: (1) lack of model articles (2) lack of appropriate guidelines, and (3) general sparsity of sourcing on many articles. How may these be addressed?
I hope that we are able to revitalise this project. Wikipedia has the capacity to become an excellent resource for anatomical information. I again welcome feedback on this quarterly or any aspects therein on the talk page for the quarterly, on my talkpage, or on the WP Anatomy talk page here. Kind regards, LT910001 ( talk)
I am trying to get the template:disease infobox working in this language [21] Would you be so find to help?
Would also love to have the cite templates working. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Those interested in applying should complete the online application form by 'Friday January 17th. Interviews with short-listed candidates will be held via webinar in late January or early February. The successful candidate should be available to start work in February or March 2014. Cheers and thanks! Ocaasi t | c 22:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I see you created Template:Google_books_with_page, and there are a few pages using it. As it comes up when searching for templates, but has no documentation, please would you either document how to use it, or merge it to another? – Fayenatic L ondon 22:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Template:DorlandsDict has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. LT910001 ( talk) 10:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mod. Pathol.. Since you had some involvement with the Mod. Pathol. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Randykitty ( talk) 14:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Phlebostatic axis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
LT910001 (
talk) 08:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Antibacterial#Propose_move_from_.22antibacterial.22_to_.22antibiotics.22 LeadSongDog come howl! 01:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've chosen today to be the official start of the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. You are welcome to participate in the opening ceremony, which consists of making a visit to its talk page and leaving a or other sign of luck. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 14:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#2)
Hello WP:ANATOMY participant! This is the second quarterly update of goings-on in WP:ANATOMY, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list
On any given week we have at least 4-10 editors making significant contributions to our articles, with probably more than double this making minor edits. As an editor, I am often wondering: with so many articles, where to start? There is so much to be done (as always, on Wikipedia!), and I aim here to provide a comprehensive list of venues within our project. If I've missed any, please let us know on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page.
An editor might edit:
Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Anatomy by User:Mdann52, using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 07:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Inferior border. Since you had some involvement with the Inferior border redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LT910001 ( talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vertebral border. Since you had some involvement with the Vertebral border redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LT910001 ( talk) 22:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Arcadian, Regarding the redirect Uniport which you created, the same name also applies to University of Port Harcourt, I think it's best a disambiguation page be created so it can be shared with other pages where the name is applicable. Please do let me know what you think. Thank you. Stanleytux ( talk) 20:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the comment above at #Palmoplantar that this page is too long. May I archive it for you? – Fayenatic L ondon 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Toxic metal poisoning, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Category:Dietary mineral toxicity, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
A reader contact Wikipedia and asked an obvious question about Odontoma
In 2009 you added the statement:
22% of odontogenic tumors are odontomas.
Two years later, an IP added the statement:
In 2011, 66% of odontogenic tumors are odontomas. University of Louisville School of Dentistry.
The IP had only two edits ever. I am hoping you can sort this out.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 22:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#3)
Hello WP:Anatomy participant! This is the third quarterly update, documenting what's going on in WikiProkect Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list
{{
Recent changes in Anatomy}}
Anatomical terminology is an essential component to all our articles. It is necessary to describe structures accurately and without ambiguity. It can also be extremely confusing and, let's face it, it's likely you too were confused too before you knew what was going on ("It's all Greek to me!" you may have said, fairly accurately).
In the opinion of this editor, it's very important that we try hard to describe anatomy in a way that is both technically accurate and accessible. The majority of our readers are lay readers and will not be fluent in terminology. Anatomy is a thoroughly interesting discipline, but it shouldn't be 'locked away' only to those who are fluent in the lingo – exploring anatomy should not be limited by education, technical-level English fluency, or unfamiliarity with its jargon. Anatomical terminology is one barrier to anatomical literacy.
Here are four ways that we can help improve the readability of our anatomical articles.
This essay is provided in full on WP:ANATSIMPLIFY.
This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list
Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Please check question at bottom of Template_talk:Monoclonals_for_bone,_musculoskeletal,_circulatory,_and_neurologic_systems. I think a link from your original needs to be a bit more specific? But only if the suggested 'specific' is correct... :-) Thanks, Shenme ( talk) 19:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:WaynesburgAnatomicModel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Lymphatics of lower limbs has been nominated for merging with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Abdominal lymph nodes has been nominated for merging with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Thoracic lymph nodes has been nominated for merging with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Lymphatics of upper limbs has been nominated for merging with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Lymphatics of head and neck has been nominated for merging with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Fourth ventricle has been nominated for merging with Template:Ventricular system of brain. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) ( talk) 02:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:MUNAnatomy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
In recognition of your amazing contributions, I am constantly taken aback by the breadth and scope of your edits, which I see wherever I go. Thanks for your significant impact on the medical & anatomy (and probably other) spheres here! Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC) |
Template:Stedman's has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:UWashSIG has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Sex hormones has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) ( talk) 04:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox medical condition has been nominated for merging with Template:Authority control. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Alakzi ( talk) 21:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I saw your edits at Paresthesia. Care to throw your two cents in here? [1] Thanks. Suntag ( talk) 16:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
A page you created, Hepatitis, viral, human, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content, other than external links, categories, "see also" sections, rephrasing of the title, and/or chat-like comments.
You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.
Thanks. Oliver202 ( talk) 23:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
As a template wizard, do you think it would be a good idea to split off a seperate epilepsy navigation box from {{ Diseases of the nervous system}} ? If yes, could you create one? -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you fix the ICD10 code at Acute alcohol intoxication? It's Y91.x, but I couldn't figure out how to make the link work. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
For knowing how to fix the ICD-10 links in the infoboxes, and for using that knowledge to help me! WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
Hey Arcadian, I've just set up a proposal for a new task force in the WikiProject Medicine called FTTF, or the Featured Topic Task Force. We aim to create a featured topic for medicine, most likely to do with an infectious disease of some form (the proposals so far include polio and bacterial infections in general) and become the first medical featured topic. The proposal can be found here and further discussion can be found at the bottom of the WikiProject Medicine talk page. I've very much appreciate your comments and possibly support of such a proposal, if you'd be willing to take part! — Cyclonenim T@lk? 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please edit the template Template:Antithrombotics, because I need to know which drugs from this class are discontinued. :-) Carlo Banez ( talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. :-) -- David Iberri ( talk) 13:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I found howardbloom.net is used as reference in the article War against Islam. Is this RS? I found no editorial board in this site. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping by - its good to know there are wikipedians out there willing to help out those just beginning. Any who, I just wanted to let you know that I copied the article to my personal Sandbox for editing (prior to public release) - User:FoodPuma/Infoboxes. Feel free to make edits there if you wish, I just wanted a place to try changing things without messing up the entire article! Cheers!-- FoodPuma ( talk) 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello again! Perhaps you remember helping me out just a couple of days ago. Well, I've improved some on my article and have now listed it for Peer Review as I prepare to nominate it for GA status. If you wouldn't mind dropping by it's peer review page, you're input would be much appreciated! Thanks! FoodPuma ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please create an article about the drugs gefarnate and teprenone? These are drugs used for the treatment of gastric ulcers. :-) Carlo Banez ( talk) 14:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that you added a "surgical intervention" template to the above article some time ago however quite a number of the links don't work. Could you have a look at it? Thanks Richerman ( talk) 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested to know that I have posted a longer reason as to why I think this gene should be deleted which I did not, through niavity, include in my original arguement. Dpmuk ( talk) 11:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
As a specialist navboxer, I'd like your opinion and maybe copy-editing of {{ Intensive care medicine}}. cheers, -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. I have a trouble because of this ban request at the ANI. Things are getting from bad to worse, with people coming to my talk page to accuse me of WP:COI violations in Biology articles. Could you please look at the article in question and check if it complies with WP:NPOV. WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability? And of course, you are very welcome to fix any problems if necessary. Perhaps I should stop editing political subjects... Thanks a lot. I also asked Tim about this. Biophys ( talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of BBS7, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=BBS7. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 12:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of BBS9, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=BBS9. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that you should become an administrator, only to find you already are! Also, I notice you're a medical student. Are you in the UK? I ask only because I want to follow the same route, interested in your opinions etc. :) Hope everything's okay.
— Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I had updated the coccidioidomycosis page with a paragraph on biological warfare information and you reverted the page to eliminate my updates. The paragraph was purely informative and accurate. My post also had a link to information about one of the new books and if that is not allowed, I apologize, but I still feel the biological warfare information (with the CDC Select Agent home page citation) should stay.
I had planned to update the coccidioidomycosis PRESENTATION section as well to reflect the newer information that emphasizes the severity of the disease. The newer, more severe, information appears in recent works like 2007's "Coccidioidomycosis: The Sixth International Symposium" or 2008's "Valley Fever Epidemic" but I would rather wait to update until after you tell me these updates will not be erased.
Thanks!
Micro2007 ( talk) 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I am actually in school right now and I am doing limited editing as I am short on time. I planned on rewording when I got home, but your keen eye embarassed me! Heh! Sorry for any misunderstanding =) Food Puma 17:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I just saw you now have over 100,000 edits on your name! That is quite an achievement. Keep going! ;-) -- WS ( talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered
Iliopectineal fascia and
Iliopectineal arch and made a merge proposal. As far as I can tell they are about the same structure, but I don't know enough to simply merge them. Is "arch" more common? Hoping you know more, I invite you to do the merge or discuss it on the
talk page.
Congrats to the 100.000 edit BTW, when it comes to human anatomy you are everywhere!
Thanks /
Raven in Orbit (
Talk |
contribs) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd value your opinion here. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I created a new template {{ Diseases of the skin and appendages by morphology}} and put some comments on the discussion page. I plan on using this template as a guide to pages I create/work on. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated (I saw you did some work on the {{ Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue}} template). Kilbad ( talk) 03:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, I created another new template {{ Clinical and histological nomenclature for skin lesions}} and wanted to get some feedback about it. How do you feel about the overall content and organization? Please see the discussion page for my desired scope and rational. Kilbad ( talk) 18:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, it's just me again.
I've been reading a lot on the pelvis lately and I'm increasingly confused. I was hoping maybe you had encountered this problem already.
In some contexts, the
body of the pubic bone is defined as located next to the
pubic symphysis between the two rami, and in other contexts as located next to the
acetabulum laterally to the superior ramus. Here are two examples:
There are many more similar contradictions available. I've been googling a lot to find an explanation somewhere with no success.
I reworked the article on the body according to the information in my Swedish reference (see
this diff), but I then discovered there seem to be different definitions around. Maybe I should revert myself? Is this a US vs. Europe issue? Or older literature vs. newer? The only hint I've been able to find is this brief sentence in Gray's
here, section 16:
Any hint is welcome.
/
Raven in Orbit (
Talk |
contribs) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you moved " Non-small cell lung carcinoma staging" to " Non-small cell lung carcinoma". Have you seen " Lung cancer"? "Lung cancer" comprehensively describes non-small cell lung carcinoma, except for staging, which would unnecessarily bloat the "Lung cancer" article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to make this list more complete, and would prefer to just add diseases to the end of the list instead of looking where to add them within the alphabetized list; therefore, I wanted to know if there was some tag or "something" that will automatically output a list in alphabetical order? Kilbad ( talk) 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
class="wikitable sortable"
. --
David Iberri (
talk) 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you think you could get a few more people to review our discussion on the categorization of dermatology articles? I realize the categorization scheme can be changed in the future, but I would like to get some more feedback before I start categorizing articles based on the current proposed tree. Also, I am almost ready to update the skin disease article with a complete list of all dermatologic diseases, and would like to have category headings on that page that closely mirror the categorization scheme we all finally decide on through our discussion on the medicine talk page. What do you think? Thanks. Kilbad ( talk) 14:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Arcadian. Kilbad ( talk · contribs) has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion, as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Arcadian—I see you just removed "zerenol" from the template. That was probably a typo, it's supposed to be zeranol. I'm not sure it warrants an article, but I thought I'd leave a note just in case you stumble across it again. Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian -- it looks like you did a number of citations for me on the Niemann Pick page -- thank you !!!!!!! -- I am new to Wikipedia as a contributor. Some new research has come out on NPC -- I have posted it on my blog Addi and Cassi Blog and Nature article is here Nature Medicine. Basically, it says that Niemann-Pick disease type C1 is a sphingosine storage disease that causes deregulation of lysosomal calcium that results in cholesterol accumulation. This is new news because the mechanism has not been known -- they talk about myriocin correcting the phenotype. The question I have for you is I am not sure how to best incorporate something like this Nature paper into the Niemann Pick page -- where do you put it? Also, it should go on sphingosine and also myriocin pages and possibly calcium. What do you suggest??
Also, Brown and Goldstein, awarded the famous Nobel Prize in 1985 for their discovery of the LDL-cholesterol receptor and its role in the control of cholesterol metabolism. Much of our current understanding of the impact of cholesterol on cardiovascular disease follows from their work and the multi billion dollar statin industry has been developed as a result of their work. They have released on PNAS very important papers on the regulation of cellular cholesterol metabolism and what they are discovering with NPC1 and NPC2. Brown and Goldstein Paper and Bill Balch Commentary on NPC1 and NPC2.
These papers need to not only be referenced on the Niemann Pick page but also on the cholesterol pages as again this very big news coming out about cholesterol I don't know how to best do this and I need some help by watching someone like you add this in -- then I can learn so when future papers come out how to do it. Would you help me with this project Arcadian? Chris | T@lk 03 November 2008
Hi Arcadian - Thanks for all your updates on the NPC pages, and for splitting out NPC into it's own page/ategory. I had Marc Patterson of the Mayo edit the main Niemann Pick Overview page -- he has been working on this for over 20 years. Also, he is going to review the NPC page to provide input. I am also have other experts look at the pages so they are completley accurate. How can we fix the Wikipedia search -- if you search on Niemann Pick Type C, it does not come up to the new page you created. Is there a way to fix wiki search. I am waiting for some pictures which hopefully you can help me get added in properly. Thanks against for everything! It's such a big relief to actually have accurate information up! Chris | T@lk 05 November 2008
Arcadian: I have made lots of updates to the NPC pages tonight - Marc Patterson from Mayo Clinic sent me all the updates and edited both my page and what you did. These pages are veyr accurate -- some of the medical terms are not even on WikiPedia!! I am still having trouble with referencing papers -- I need more time to learn. Patterson wanted me to change on of our references to make it completely accurate. It's under Genetics on the main NP page
"Mutations in the SMPD1 gene cause Niemann-Pick disease types A and B, and mutations in NPC1 and NPC2 cause type C (NPC). Type D was originally separated from type C to delineate a group of otherwise identical patients who shared a common Nova Scotian ancestry. Patients in this group are now known to share a specific mutation in the NPC 1 gene, and NPC is now used to embrace both groups. The terms "Niemann-Pick type I" and "Niemann-Pick type II" were proposed to separate the high and low sphingomyelin forms of the disease in the early 1980s, before the molecular defects were described
The reference is: (Elleder M, Jirásek A. Niemann-Pick Disease. Report on a symposium held in Hlava's Institute of Pathology, Charles University, Prague 2nd-3rd September, 1982. Acta Univ Carol [Med] (Praha). 1983;29(3-4):259-67.)”
I can't make it work tonight, I am too tired. I hope you can help review both the NP and NPC pages and fix this reference. I am working to gather all sorts of images for the pages to make them complete and current. It would be helpful if you read this and determine other pages that could be linked -- there is a lot of good information here. We need some links into the cholesterol areas.
Thanks - Chris | T@lk 11 November 2008
This user User:Cannibaloki has been reverting all of my edits in the pages related to Iron Maiden, with the excuse that "my opinion doesn't interest him!". There was this version on the lead of Iron Maiden discography here, that needed to be re-written to meet Wikipedia's quality standars. Then after several weeks he re-wrote this lead. That lead he re-wrote had many issues, grammar errors and was longer than it was really needed, because it said some information about every album that was better placed in the album's pages. I re-wrote the lead. Now it contained the most important sentences he had written, some I wrote myself taking other Featured lists as references, and then was copy edited by User:Gary King. He just reverted the edit saying " His opinion does not interest me!" here. I told him to take Nine Inch Nails discography, Metallica discography, and many others as a reference. I can see how mad he is, it was like if he was using blinders, because he doesn't listen to any opinion and every edit I make to that page he reverts it saying it doesn't interest him. I hope you can find the solution to this problem. Thank you.
PD: If you don't have time to take care of this, please recommend me and admin that could help me. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section on 'allegation of cruelty' as subsection under 'criticism' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [2], please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle ( talk) 06:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
...is not the same as N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside, indeed they are entirely different compounds. I'll clear it up shortly. Meodipt ( talk) 23:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm this is quite a puzzle - it seems that both these compounds have been given the abbreviation CACA at some point, and its now hard to work out what N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside actually does, as when you search for that name in PubMed it comes up with a whole load of research which actually uses (Z)-4-Amino-2-butenoic acid! The only paper I can find that definitely uses N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside is (PMID 3440022) mentioning it as a prodrug for cytosine. Another paper (PMID 18685793) says explicitly that N(4)-chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside is a GABAC agonist but I wonder whether the authors have themselves got the two CACA's mixed up... Meodipt ( talk) 00:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey. Can I ask why you've moved infectious mononucleosis to it's current title? I wasn't aware we were placing virus names in disease article names. I strictly believe infectious mononucleosis is more appropriate, it's aetiology is inferred from the article itself. Although, there are no other causes but EBV. Remember that page moves probably should be discussed first. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your work on these articles. However I just noticed the pharmocology stub category is jammed full with 2600 +!! Could you please comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2008/November and suggest ways in which we can conceivably split this category into more manageable stub categories by specific sub order. Thanks Count Blofeld 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello arcadian, I just edited the article you contributed to about glycopyrrolate to include its other name of glycopyyronium bromide. I was wondering if you could make it so that a search for glycopyrronium bromide would redirect to the glycopyrrolate page. Im a newbie to editing here and dont know how. Hopefully you can help me out. Regards, Shaun3001 ( talk) 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you again for all your help with the dermatology content on wikipedia. With regard to the list of skin diseases, would you support a renaming of that article to something like "Conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system"? I would like to rename it to something broader so that conditions of the adnexa may remain in the list. kilbad ( talk) 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you be able to motivate why you reversed the template about cell types? What do you think myocytes are and why do you think they are part of circulatory system? Why then there is such a thing as skeletal myocytes [3]? (unsigned comment, from User talk:96.237.4.57
Evil tendencies are early shown. Vuerqex ( talk) 00:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A hypocrite deceives no one but himself. Vuerqex ( talk) 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :-) It never ceases to amaze me how many new drugs keep on being invented the whole time, but I think we are finally starting to get most of them covered! Good job on arranging them all into categories. Meodipt ( talk) 03:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In the Foreign body you deleted too much ! -- Tamás Kádár ( talk) 16:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am writing about my substantial edit on dietary mineral. This topic sometimes generates strong feelings, in part because of commercialization of dietary supplements and in part because of suspicion of biochemistry by some. So if you strongly disagree or want to discuss what I did, please leave a note here. I have been working intermittently on this article for years, and periodically various exotic elements creep in, like Li, Al, V, Cr, As, Te, Sn, Ge, Cs, Rb, Bi, W. Beats me, but I can only guess that vendors of these supplements are driving such edits, as we found on chromium picolinate, a multimillion dollar product. In any case, let me know. Best wishes,-- Smokefoot ( talk) 19:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Good work adding those references. The are still some issues, especially if tolerance alone is sufficient to declare physical dependence. See Talk:Physical dependence. Xasodfuih ( talk) 05:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, hoping you can explain why our Mitochondrial Disease Symptom Guide for Clinicians link keeps getting removed? Is it because MitoAction is a charity? Because you have to register to view the guide (this is for legal reasons - medical advice, etc etc)? The resource guide is a clinical document written by doctors and we feel one of the best resources online for doctors who often find themselves faced with diagnosing and dealing with this often previously un-dealt with disease. Can you please offer a few words of explanation? (unsigned, from User talk:Accessionmedia)
Would you mind my moving this to benzylpenicillin (the INN?) I hope you and your loved ones enjoyed (or are enjoying :) the holidays. Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've just been looking at the above template and trying to understand it. What is the reason for the ICD-10 field? ICD-10 does not have an interventions classification. Canada, Australia, the UK and the US have all developed their own - none of which are called ICD-10. This is not the same as ICD-9-CM in which the procedure classification is a part of the base classification. The WHO have taken the Australian classification and released a highly simplified version of it as ICHI (International Classification of Health Interventions), but it is really too broad to be of much use on Wikipedia. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad ( talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Arcadian, thank you for your help in the past with WT:PHARM:CAT. Some additional progress has been made with the proposed categorization scheme, and I just wanted to leave a few follow-up questions here, if you had time to give me feedback. However, I have read and appreciate your last post of this thread, and understand if you are too busy at this time to give me a comment!
Some specific question I have for you are:
Well, thanks again for all your help. Also, I replied back with a direct fb link... kilbad ( talk) 19:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response to my request to semi-protect the Template:PBB/7273 page. I was becoming tired of reverting all the "non-word" nonsense ;-) Best regards, Boghog2 ( talk) 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits, not least the section headings. I should try and improve the clinical and patient care parts in future revisions of the article. Courrege ( talk) 01:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The WASH6P article is about a pseudogene and therefore is probably not notable. I hope you don't take offense, but I would suggest that this article should be deleted. The rest of your stubs were interesting and taught me something about the pseudoautosomal region which I was not aware of until now. Cheers. Boghog2 ( talk) 11:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Strombollii from the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 could really use your help on his current project: Osteitis fibrosa cystica. He has had trouble finding suitable information (in both verifiability and quantity) for the topic and is relatively unfamiliar to the style and formating for medicine articles on Wikipedia. As a friend, I told him I would gladly message those who I respected as fellow wiki-editors and who I believed could add to his medicine related article. You, of course (from your help and critizim in Osteochondritis dissecans), were one of my choices. So if you can spare the time, I am sure your help would be much appreciated. Again, thank you for your own help in my article... without you and several other editors, I would have never made GA. Cheers! FoodPuma 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing :-) I came to this because I could not set up {{ Infobox Disease}} on a new article for the new eMedicine website structure. I've now corrected in sequence {{ eMedicine}}, {{ eMedicine2}} and {{ Infobox Disease}} along with documentation & talk pages too (ugh)!
Please have a look at {{ Infobox Disease}} discussion page thread I've set up and improve the documentation if required :-) David Ruben Talk 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Brucellosis vaccine, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/aug05/aug15/Studyaimstofindnewvaccineto.cfm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 03:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Plague vaccine, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.drugs.com/cons/plague-vaccine.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 03:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Yellow fever vaccine, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccineInfo/vaccine_detail.cfv?id=28. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 03:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you catch my note about Amoebiasis at WT:MED? I (respectfully) disagreed with your edits and provided a few sources, but you don't seem to have responded. Entamoeba has asked for MarcoTolo's opinion on the matter—just letting you know in case you missed by original post at the project. Best as always, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at a category renaming I proposed, and adding your input? Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_10#Category:Diseases_of_skin_appendages I ask, because I am most likely going to be proposing other renames in the future, and want to get a great consensus regarding the use of the word "condition". kilbad ( talk) 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice you have been creating a lot of disconnected stub articles about vaccines lately. Rather than creating a one sentence articles that aren't connected to the article about the item being vaccinated against, seems like it might make more sense to add the vaccine material as a section in the main article (with a redirect, as appropriate), until enough material collects to warrant a separate article. (Talking about things like Brucellosis vaccine, Japanese encephalitis vaccine, Tick-borne encephalitis vaccine, etc.)
At the very least, please add links to the new vaccine articles from the pathogen or disease article in question. Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 08:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for improving my cite at Dientamoeba_fragilis. Can you tell me what citation tool you use to do this quickly. I still haven't found a good one. I find manually filling in citweb very slow and guess there must be a better way. Mccready ( talk) 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
When you split Borna disease into Borna disease virus, the most natural article name is actually Bornavirus. On top of that, there hasn't been (to my knowledge) a consensus in WP:VIRUS to separate the disease from the disease causing agent, and most of the articles aren't necessary long enough for a split to occur anyways. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 02:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been to WP:MEDMOS and they seem more intent on getting the language right than worrying about how to draw the boundaries for articles. When I referring to other articles, I was a bit ambiguous, sorry about that. I understand why Rabies was split, but the virology section was grossly incomplete and I don't think it was a bit excessive to split it into Rabies virus. IMO the general consensus is essentially implied in WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOFF; however I don't necessarily agree that splitting off the virology would necessarily allow the article to be more focus.
A guideline discussing when articles should be divided and among what lines would be helpful; so let's organize our thoughts before we bring it to the community:
Ok, thanks for clarifying Borna disease virus, I'm actually quite a bit surprised that I didn't catch that, BVD is the species and Bornavirus is the genus; it's even listed in the infobox. Nevertheless, that redraws how we're dividing it, Bornavirus stays as it is; so the only issue left is to CSD move Borna disease to Borna disease virus (BVD is the most likely search term), and then writing a short virology section there. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the first time I have edited a page, so if I mess up please let me know. I am looking at your article on MHC class I, and noticed that you are the author of a change suggesting that sec61 transports extra peptides not displayed by MHC Class I into cytosol. Do you have a reference for this? Bfeuerstein ( talk) 23:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to ask, being part of the Main page redesign proposal, the project is essentially finished except for one issue, which requires a third party to help shed a new view point. This project has been going on for a while, and participation has gone quite a ways down; with this one issue resolved I believe we can get it over with. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was just looking at the infobox that you added to the Zygote article way back in October 2007, and I'm curious about it. Is there any particular reason that the article should have an (essentially empty) infobox? I like infoboxes as much as the next person and I certainly don't want to be overly bold and remove something that has a purpose, but I don't understand it. The main reason I'm wondering about it is that the code has been vandalized (though it doesn't show up in the actual infobox; I stumbled across it quite by accident) and I was about to delete the vandalism, but then I began to wonder whether we need the box at all and I decided to go right to the source to find out. Also, if the box is serving a purpose, could you please explain to me why it says "Days -- 1"? That's stumping me. Thanks -- edi (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete the list of support groups for the external links in this article I do not understand your comment: "Support group links: dmoz, per MEDMOS". Many of these are important sources of information, which is the purpose of this section I thought. I'm going to add back a number of the better of these unless you present some compelling argument otherwise (particularly the National Hemophilia Foundation). Peace, Earthdirt ( talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:ClinicalTrials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Eastlaw talk · contribs 00:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you moved chemotherapy to chemotherapy (oncology). The page is currently about its most common use (cancer chemotherapy), and the intro already clearly disambiguates to alternative uses. Also, the move was not discussed. I've moved it back for the time being. JFW | T@lk 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the chemotherapy article should only deal with actual chemotherapy drugs, but I think the term "antineoplastic" is inaccurate because benign tumours are also neoplasms. The whole world (lay and professional) refers to stuff like cisplatin or daunorubicin as "chemo[therapy]". At the same time, antineoplastic or cancer drug (presently a redirect) would be good container articles to discuss all pharmacological cancer treatment modalities (to the exclusion of surgery and EBRT). Perhaps this is good subject for a discussion on WT:MED. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact, we already have a very good container in the cancer article itself: the cancer#treatment section. Rather than creating more container articles, I have simply removed all the content on targeted therapy and hormonal therapy. Could I recommend that we turn antineoplastic into a redirect to cancer#treatment. The only content in that article that needs shifting is the section on occupational harm from exposure to cytostatics; this could actuall be merged into chemotherapy. JFW | T@lk 10:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there
I removed the image of phytate because it is not the same as phytic acid. The image does not agree with the formula and MW in the box. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've found the appropriate free acid image now, so it's moot. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for quick responses. I think I've now got things set up for those 3 options of killed/inactivated bacteria/viruses, attenuated viruses and live bacteria. If on implementing this it looks all horribly wrong, feel free to revert the drugbox and its /doc to prior verions and we can re-work on this after my holiday :-) David Ruben Talk 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Arcadian, I'm not sure why you changed Chronic lymphocytic leukemia to B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I left a message about it in Talk:B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
There are recent sources that refer to T-cell CLL, so I wonder why you reject them. Nbauman ( talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
S B H arris 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I am at a loss for how to improve the article as it stands. Recently my edits have mainly been focusing on minor copyediting, and at this point I feel as though it's time to jump the cliff and hope for the best. I was advised by my teacher ( JimmyButler) to wait until my diagram images have passed OTRS verification. At that point, would you support a move for FA? Kind regards, FoodPuma 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you look at a thread for me, someone expressing concern about some recent edits: User_talk:Kilbad#Nickcoop.2C_the_GP_from_New_Zealand_is_attacking_the_Mohs_surgery_article_again kilbad ( talk) 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sclerosis (medicine), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Sclerosis. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you've edited this template several times. I'd appreciate your input here on merging Skin ulcer and Ulcer (dermatology), and how to handle the link in the template. Thanks! -- Auntof6 ( talk) 06:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to know if the you would review a recent CFD I posted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_21#Category:Endocrine-related_diseases_and_the_skin. I am looking to get more opinions. kilbad ( talk) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you a US medical student? If so, have you decided what you want to go into? If not, can I talk you into dermatology? Maybe you can do an away elective at my academic institution in Chicago? ;) kilbad ( talk) 15:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian: I am adding links in the lysosomal storage disease area to The Children's Rare Disease Network and now I see that these links are not up after I spend considerable time putting them on Wiki today. I added the links which are appropraite for people who suffer from rare diseaes, especially the children's diseases. This is a non profit organization that is the main hub for families who are dealing with rare diseases of all types. Some of these small rare disease states do not even have non-profits supporting them and they have no money -- The Project Charity -- The Children's Rare Disease Network will be the main non profit for families and kids to go to for support. Some diseases only have 200 kids worldwide -- certainly not a community and this is why I need to put up so many links. It's not like added links to the Cancer Page to the Cancer Society when millions are affected. This is the umbrella organization supporting Rare Diseases of all types. This site needs to be added to all the Rare Disease pages that are under represented -- this is their organization. Would you be taking down links to NORD if I put them up on Wiki? I read the rules and it appears to be appropriate given the nature of this organization and how rare each disease is. It's going to be lots of links for lots of different obscure or rare disease, many which have no organization support. I am a volunteer for them along with many other families who have children with rare disease. Chris | T@lk 26 February 2009
Please see my comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:CNS_diseases_of_the_nervous_system My status as a wikipedia dissident unfortunatly dictates my use of IP addresses rather than an account. Thanks 79.72.116.123 ( talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!) |
-- ~~~~
Maen. K. A. ( talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 07:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Its the Cookie Monster (
talk) has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Imagine heart failure split into systolic and diastolic halves, then ponder each half split left and right. Mathematical models come to mind in an equation stretched over 70 years in good health. Adolph Fick first introduced Cardiac Output readily echocardiographically extrapolated to Ejection Fraction. (unsigned, by Lbeben)
Hi. I note that you created the Babesia article. This page has been heavily edited by a temporary account (‘Nmunabi’) who apparently has knowledge of the subject. (I am not an expert in this area.) Yet he/she destroyed all the wikilinks and all the inline references. I don’t understand why. I reconstructed the references before realizing quite what had happened. So my question to you is, were this guy’s edits useful, or vandalism? What was he up to?
Appreciate your insight at the article talk page. Earthlyreason ( talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, how are you, i think its very short article, please try to add more to it, so it will not be deleted by other editors, from other wikiprojects than medicine, for me i appreciate the importance of every contribution to the project Maen. K. A. ( talk) 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
why there is no article?? I guess many lines can be written about this subject Maen. K. A. ( talk) 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Please reply to my message on my Talk Page. |
Hi. In the course of typo fixing just now I came upon this article and corrected several typos and made links in the last paragraph. Looking at the whole article I then noticed that (a) this paragraph was out of place, (b) it was added only four days ago by an IP who has no other edits, and (c) though it seemed to make sense, it wasn't clear to me that it was directly relevant to the article. I see from the history that you have edited the article and are maybe qualified to decide what to do about this addition. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 16:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)). I'd recommend throwing a fact tag on it, and then see if the author comes back. --
Arcadian (
talk) 16:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I know that this is getting to be a bit of an issue again, but I oppose the split in Hepatitis B virus. Described in greater detail in the discussion, I think we need a clearer line as to when a split may be done. In my opinion, including the virology along with the medical aspects and so forth is an effective method of allowing the reader to see the entire subject, before they specialize into what they're looking for. Obviously there are some limitations to that, such as audience sophistication—as whether or not the can actually understand the section Microbiology. So I believe we should hold off on dividing articles unless it proves necessary. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
In the last few weeks anonymus users made several attempts to write new data without source. Plese help (for example: you could partial block this article so only users with account could change this article).
Sunset2007b ( talk) 07:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I left a response to your comments and am ok moving forward with the categorization of pharmacology articles. kilbad ( talk) 17:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was cleaning up some of the templates in the category:medicine templates and came across {{ Protbox disease}}. I am not sure what it's purpose is, but it doesn't seem to be used for anything at this point. Since you originally created it, thought I would ask what it is for (if you remember way back when), or whether it should just be deleted at this point. (Didn't want to propose it for deletion if still useful.) If still useful, maybe we could add a line or two explaining purpose? Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 09:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was puzzling over why the article was moved from "Turbinate" to " Nasal concha", as I am long familiar with the former but not the latter. (Also, I googled both terms, and "Turbinate" gets about 10 times as many G-hits.) The name change isn't mentioned on the talk page, but I finally spotted the page move in the edit history, with your edit summary, "more general term". Could you take a minute and elaborate on that? Thanks! Cgingold ( talk) 02:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for turning my attention to that, and i moved it here :-) Maen. K. A. ( talk) 20:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the work on this, however I am wondering if the splitup is not into to many articles. From the nonpuerperal section, some forms have common aetiology/pathogenesis including treatment, likewise much of the literature applied for several sections at a time.
The classification in medical literature is so ambiguos and overlaping that separate articles may make sense by lexicologic or historic criteria but not otherwise. I started working on an overview of classification section recently, somewhat of a nightmare. For some authors everything is duct ectasia while other like to classiffy it into single atoms and german or italian publications use their own scheme.
Lots of stuff went missing in the splitup? From the nonpuerperal section you have retained the more exotic parts, the ordinary unspecific nonpuerperal mastitis is completely missing (or maybe that is part of the classification problem?) as is the overview of pediatric issues and mastitis neonatorum that was at least mentioned in the introduction.
If you have any thought on this please move the discussiun to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mastitis
Richiez ( talk) 18:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Referring to your offer at WT:PHARM:CAT: Could you move Category:Immunosuppressive agents to Category:Immunosuppressants and Category:Chemotherapeutic agents to Category:Antineoplastic drugs?
Also, do you know of an existing category to move to Category:Drugs for endocrine therapy? – I don't want to create it without getting a second opinion. Cheers -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I replied to your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Looking_for_opinions_about_category_names. Thanks again for your feedback. kilbad ( talk) 14:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
During the course of editing these past several weeks there have been a few issues that have come up, some of which I have posted at WP:MED, but all of which still need someone to sort through. Perhaps you could look at the following items and make any changes as you see fit:
Ok, thanks again for your help. --- kilbad ( talk) 06:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
Hello Arcadian. I noticed you've created a lot of aldehyde dehydrogenase gene articles, and I think you deserve a barnstar! Rosiestep ( talk) 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
Please visit User talk:NifCurator1. I believe your knowledge of {{tl:Infobox Disease}} would be invaluable. LeadSongDog come howl 18:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian.
Now that there are a number of selective ligands for neuropeptide receptors, I decided to make a navbox to link together the pages so far. However on completion of this box I am thinking some of these peptides like cholecystokinin are not really neuropeptides and are more peptide hormones, and so should perhaps go in your peptide hormones template instead?
I'm a bit unsure as many of these peptides like
Corticotropin-releasing hormone have multiple sites of action throughout the body and brain and so do not fit neatly into either category...your advice, suggestions etc would be appreciated as always.
Meodipt (
talk) 13:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ Neuropeptide agonists and antagonists}}
{{ Peptide hormone agonists and antagonists}}
Oh yeah obviously there will be redundancies in time, I just wanted to get a navbox or two made as a base to expand on. I was thinking whether I should make seperate boxes for e.g. "neuropeptide agonists" and "neuropeptide antagonists" like how there is for serotonin but decided against it for now, mainly because for technical reasons almost all drugs targeting these receptors so far have been antagonists, but I felt it would be more helpful to the reader having the endogenous agonist listed alongside. Can always be split later anyway if heaps of neuropeptide agonists get invented. Agree that these navboxes may grow quite large with time considering how many neuropeptide GPCRs there are which have yet to be studied in detail!!
Meodipt (
talk) 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey... When you did this edit you removed the main reference on PETN (Cooper's book) which was not in a ref tag above, but merely listed in the references section.
Please be a bit more careful...
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 19:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings your magnificence (anyone over 100K worth of edits gets a title; at 150K, you get a toaster).
I've created the above page and asked for a comment at WT:MED#Doege-Potter syndrome, but what I'm keenly interested in will be how it fits into the myriad template navboxes you created. Since that seems your purview, would you do the kindness of selecting an appropriate one or selection?
Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
If available, your comments would be appreciated regarding 3rd and 4th level ATC categories. --- kilbad ( talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
100,000 Edits | ||
I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________ |
I have a dispute with another editor. Your comments would be appreciated. Meodipt ( talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Antidepressants template
I'm sorry. I use broken English.
Which classification system are you using?
I think that your classification system is similar to Thomas Cavalier-Smith.
This classification isn't universally accepted.
A few classes are doubtful and probably should be left off.
Moreover, Thomas Cavalier-Smith includes Dictyoglomus and Thermotoga in Posibacteria(Unibacteria). But, your classification includes Dictyoglomus and Thermotoga in "outer membrane present".
Instead, I plan to use Bergey's Manual. -- Krclathrate ( talk) 18:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I used Gracilicutes and Terrabacteria in Japanese wikipedia. Thank you!
I want to use Eurybacteria. However, I hardly know Eurybacteria. Please teach me the research of Eurybacteria. -- Krclathrate ( talk) 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Arcadian!
Checked your AR and ARP (also seen as AR% or EF etiologic fraction) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ARR_RRR_worksheet, values are correct but they only make sense for risk reduction (ARP gives the portion of cases attributable (and avoidable) to this exposure in relation to all cases). You might want to remove the -300% and add this explanation to the ARP-page, too, otherwise the value of -300% is quite confusing.
In the case of risk reduction the value of PF preventive fraction (or preventable fraction) = 1-RR (or 1-OR) would be correct to use.
Also the question of "how much is enough" arises, because we could start adding PAR and PARP/PAR%... which brings us a long way from the initial (simple) example ;)
T.pienn ( talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Set the (mathematically correct but practically unused) 300% to N/A, included PF instead.
T.pienn ( talk) 10:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Created the accompanying article to preventive fraction. Have a nice weekend!
T.pienn ( talk) 11:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Axillary a.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Common Good ( talk) 19:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Were you planning to update the links to Amoeba to point to the new location? I can do so if you like. – xeno talk 13:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | Amoeba proteus, previously Chaos diffluens, is an amoeba | ” |
The link provided, is to a disambiguation page. Is our dear reader to guess which of the links on the page the Amoeba proteus is? Is it a software company? A distributed operating system? Perhaps, rather than speaking in vague language you could tell me a better target for these links rather than inappropriately pointing our readers at a disambiguation page. – xeno talk 18:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
From Seven Seas Lagoon:
“ | Swimming was also allowed in the lagoon until it was discovered that the lagoon was harboring very dangerous amoeba Naegleria fowleri | ” |
From Paramecium:
“ | Giant amoebas, for instance, have types of endosymbiotes, | ” |
From Boiling:
“ | Boiling water for a few minutes kills most bacteria, amoeba, and other microbial pathogens. | ” |
Hi Arcadian, thanks for the good work here, I just want to ask you why did you redirect Arcella to Arcella hemisphaerica? And I noticed you also created many similar redirects. I am afraid I am strongly opposed to this type of redirects. I think leaving them as red links is the only (efficient) way to encourage other editors to start new articles on them; redirecting for the purpose of turning red links into blue kills that courage because it suggests the page does not need to have an article on its own. Mxipp ( talk) 18:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You do know that these were not orphaned references but a "Further reading" section, right? :) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 03:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your reason is for undoing the work that I did on GM2 gangliosidoses. Why don't you explain in the talk section for the article. Metzenberg ( talk) 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I gave up our dispute and left it to you (with a slight tweak to the disambig page IIRC). But today I did notice an IP has made a few changes ( Special:Contributions/69.86.152.95). This strikes me as a step backward, could you take a look? Best regards, – xeno talk 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Vaccines&diff=next&oldid=273827499 That seems to put it where I hoped it would go. Midgley ( talk) 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Anybody mind if I spit out the biological role? There's a lot more to say about it, but it's hard to expand in its current location. -- Arcadian ( talk) 15:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
So many users in that page keep on putting false claims about Regine Velasquez' achievements and talent, to the point that they make up fake 'achievements' about her so-called 'reign'. Velasquez is not famous all over the world, she has not sold one million records all over Asia. They keep sensationalizing her page by writing over hyped and false claims such as having a 'palatial house', albums selling over 10X platinum, that Regine rejected the Miss Saigon role, and so much more. Thank you.
Hello, you and/or an issue you have been involved in is being discussed at the administrator's noticeboard here. Tan | 39 15:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Glad we're moving forward... I just thought perhaps we could hack out what links to disambiguation pages you feel are appropriate. For example, in the most recent case, when the disambiguation page was at the primary location, Stropharia then linked to a disambiguation page when it should have linked to acanthocyte (mycology) [5], no? – xeno talk 17:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"The page at Michael Dobbs is about the primary topic, and there is only one other use. The other use is linked directly using a hatnote; no disambiguation page is needed." (emphasis mine)
Basically, it's all messed up taxonomically and systematically. I write you because I saw you disambiguated Cryptochloris, which is good, but that genus is apparently preoccupied by some grass (I suspect it's a junior synonym of Chloris or some other Chloridoideae). But online sources wildly vary. I'll try and figure out what's going on here; recent studies do not use the genus name for a cryptophyte, but the latest Cryptomonas revision does not figure it in the synonymy either. It might belong to the synonymy of Plagioselmis (which as it seems is much closer to Teleaulax than to Cryptomonas). In any case, I think if the homonymy is as given in the Index Nominum Genericorum, I should be able to figure out where the disambiguation ought to point to. That is the easy part...
The "Cryptomonads-haptophytes assemblage" infobox is in need of a major overhaul. The Pyrenomonadaceae (which lack Rhodomonas in the list) are the only family that any recent study finds to be monophyletic, the rest is just a mess. Pyrenomonadales would, if valid at all, be monophyletic. Here is what according to what I have seen (basically every study published within the last 20 years that has some phylo data on Cryptomonas at least) is the baseline phylogeny.
What should be done? The German Wikipedia for one is better here, and as I may well be tied down with a cryptophyte killing spree (all in the name of science) for the next half year or so, I might give it an overhaul eventually. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 12:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your rebranding of the cell wall antibiotics template to cell envelope antibiotics and the corresponding article. Is this a real distinction? It seems the polymyxins throw a spanner in the works of the accepted grouping. I notice though that the polymyxins fall into "J01X - Other antibacterials" section. Perhaps that template should remain cell wall inhibitors given the size and importance of this group, while these tricky cell membrane antibiotics would be added to the "Other" template. What are your thoughts on the distinction? (btw, they have all been extremely useful while recently revising for my medical pathology exams, so thanks!) |→ Spaully τ 23:36, 28 June 2009 ( GMT)
Hi, how are you doing??... I want your help in continuing the GA review for hypertension article, as the original reviewers seems busy, and had not commented for a while, and actually I put much effort for the hypertension article, from this to this, so I don't want it to fail, so please continue the review yourself or recommend a new editor to continue that :-) MaenK.A. Talk 16:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. The other compounds I had added redlinks for make up the remainder of the anabolic steroids prohibited by law in various Australian jurisdictions, and prohibited from use by athletes by the Olympics and other sports bodies. Some of these compounds are as you point out very obscure and do not have listings on PubChem, but still their legal prohibition alone gives them grounds to be deemed notable and encylopedic. Not too bothered whether the redlinks stay on the template or not, but I will add pages for them as I find references, ethyldienolone for instance. Meodipt ( talk) 03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of P wave (electrocardiography), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.wtv-zone.com/MARCEY/EKG/ekgcycle.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 02:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Age Ageing. Since you had some involvement with the Age Ageing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thinking of England ( talk) 09:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
We had a stub at this name, sadly useless, but should we have an article there? Or maybe a redirect? Many thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC).
Can you let me know what you think about the redirects to the disambiguation page you created? I've started a discussion topic here. Thanks! Dekimasu よ! 05:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
If "computed tomography", "CT scan", etc. almost always refer to X-ray computed tomography, lets move that article back and put the disambiguation page at Computed tomography (disambiguation). There are over 900 links to the disambiguation page at Computed tomography, but there's nothing there now to help the end user (or someone trying to disambiguate links) figure out which type is intended in any given context. I'm not sure the disambiguation page is fulfilling its intended use as a navigational aid here. If you object, please let me know, or at least visit the talk page I linked above. Dekimasu よ! 06:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of merging A to B (an article you created hence why I am messaging you) based on the articles similarity with each other. The giveaway was the alternate name given in the cerebellothalamic tract. However, that page is unreferenced so I am unsure how accurate the info is and hence whether it should merge or not (in addition to the merger, a few of the other names should be made into redirects as well). Finally, if it is to be merged should all the info that is not on the main page be merged as well (or not?) considering it is unreferenced? Your opinion (or better yet, you agreeing and merging the articles!) would be great. Kind regards. Calaka ( talk) 08:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Rhizaria, a taxon within the Protista, essentially emmends the Class Rhizopodea and too belongs at the rank of taxonomic class. Rhizarea (ex-Rhizopodea)unites three groups that are thought of as orders, the Cercozoa, Formaminifera, and Radiolaria and falls within the concept of the phylum Sarcodina.
Reverting back from my taxobox edit of 9/21/09 simply reinstates an inaccurate and misleading picture.
In June you edited the Template Animalia, which ended up with Lophophorata appearing twice. I have tried to correct this, but I don't know if it's correct. You might want to check. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 15:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Back in May 2007 you unredirected the article Galactan from Galactose. Since then the only edits have been bot ones, and none in the last year. Unless there is a good (i.e. scientific) reason why this one sentence article should not be redirected again to Galactose I think it should be done. I will leave the decision (and action?) to you. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The article EMedicine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Chzz
► 10:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated EMedicine, 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/EMedicine. 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. Chzz ► 21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm editing an article about my department in Paraguay that is the Misiones Department. I'm having a problem with the infobox. Hope you can check it and help me. Regards.
Hey, just a quick thanks for the good job that you have/are doing on Template:Cerebral cortex, its on my watchlist that's all ^_^ I would love to give you a cookie (::) because everyone deserves to feel appreciated, Regards, Captain n00dle T/ C 18:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- I've been noticing your good work on neuroscience articles -- in this case though I'm having difficulty seeing any justification for having an independent article here, as opposed to a redirect to serotonin. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 03:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (PS, consider archiving some of the old stuff on your talk page?)
How is school? Did you get your Step I back? Any thoughts about pursuing a derm residency? Feel free to drop me an e-mail if you need any help with the residency application process.
Also, I have no doubt you are busy with clinicals, but if you have some time, perhaps you could help us with the Bolognia push 2009? I can e-mail you the login information for the online text, plus it would be a nice intro to derm for any future electives you choose to do.
Just a thought... --- kilbad ( talk) 21:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you care to provide an oppinion to a query over at the Tubercle of the femur talk page? Thank you. Calaka ( talk) 00:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a courtesy note to let you know that I've changed Brain infarction to redirect to Cerebral infarction instead of Infarction. Best wishes. Neurotip ( talk) 16:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Good evening, Arcadian! I've started a duscussion about the three growth factors listed in the hormones template. You may be interested as author of numerous (great) templates. Best regards, -- CopperKettle 19:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I'd just like to say I completely disagree with your merging of the tricyclic antidepressant and tetracyclic antidepressant articles and I'd like to revert the changes. Thoughts/opinions? el3ctr0nika ( Talk | Contribs) 02:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just to let you know, I tagged Cerebellopontine angle with {{ copyvio}}. It looked too good to be true so I googled a random sentence (in quotes) and it brought up this page as an exact match. Just to let you know. Best regards, Captain n00dle \ Talk 17:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it was great meeting you the other day!
Also, I had a question... with regard to the condition balanitis plasmacellularis (see the actual stub for all the synonyms), my understanding from looking at Bolognia and Andrew's is that it can affect the glans penis or the vulva. Bolognia discusses the condition under the header "Zoon's Balanitis/Vulvitis." Therefore, I wanted to know if the article should be moved to another title that includes both the words "balanitis" and "vulvitis", and, if so, what the title should be? --- kilbad ( talk) 20:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You removed varicella from the list of exanthems in this revision [6] I am looking at the same text mentioned on the talk page (Murray et al) and it is certainly listed as one. Also, if this was intentional, you should probably remove it from the prevention section as well. Thank you JoshuaTree ( talk) 02:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Well done for this very clever circumvention of the thorny copyright issues! [7] JFW | T@lk 19:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Those would be J. Urol. and J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. Since you were never notified, I was wondering if you'd like to opine. For the relevant page, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 26. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
How's is it going? How is school?
Question: Would you consider moving Cherry hemangioma to Cherry angioma (or to any of the other diease synonyms: De Morgan spot, Senile angioma). I think the term angioma should be used, not hemangioma. Perhaps the term cherry hemangioma should not even have an article/redirect? Any thoughts? I will e-mail you the Bolognia login if you would like to investigate the issue in that particular source. --- kilbad ( talk) 05:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I see you have replaced the reference to Terminologia Anatomica's description of "limbic lobe". I don't have access to any edition of the book at present. I've searched Google's scan of the 1998 edition but can't find its description of the limbic lobe. Are you able to get an edition and page number? If it's a hassle, don't worry. I go back to uni' in a couple of weeks. Cheers. Anthony ( talk) 17:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have incorporated it as best as I can. Anthony ( talk) 03:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There appear to be two articles with the same enzyme name:
It seems to me they should be merged into one article. (Is there some reason they are separate?) I'm not sure I have the expertise to do it, but I would be willing to try. (You look to be pretty busy!) I'm guessing the first name would be the preferred one, so it should probably be the destination page? -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Neutropenia , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiral5800 ( talk) 13:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I've started a list of the articles we should aim to include in the first wave of this project. We are aiming to start off by transferring about 100-200 articles into about several developing world language Wikipedias. It will hopefully expand after that. I've started a list here User:TimVickers/Article list. Please add articles that you think will be useful, and of reasonable quality. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Heparin/GA1. It appears that large parts of the article are copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The article Bacillary peliosis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Mod MMG (
User Page) Reply on my
talkpage. Do NOT click
this link 07:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by to thank you for moving/renaming "Ocular oncology" to "Eye neoplasms." I never liked the previous name, especially since ocular oncology is a discipline and not a condition, and I'm glad to see the improvements in citations and links. Mdonken ( talk) 17:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
All new research refers to it as BPS or BPS/IC. See for example PMID 20025029 ► RATEL ◄ 05:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the Javier Arias Stella DYK nomination is good to go. :3 Silver seren C 13:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 09:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting idea, this (and similar edits). What do you think about expanding the abbreviations? They might seem a bit cryptic to the newcomer. Regards, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 19:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know, I nominated the page you created Extends for deletion, in case you wish to comment. Dew Kane ( talk) 04:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It is very sad that the zonule of zinn's article is 2 lines long. I tried to start a comprehensive article, both physiological and historical (with the appropriate references) but was deleted in its entirety by Lox, which I undid... and then again by you. Please let me know which portions you consider copyright violations (and why). Maybe we can figure a way to get this info out there. I studied the zonule for years, and was the first one to use eSEM to study the zonule. I have been published in peer reviewed journals on the subject, and wish to contribute to the wikipedia project. I even have some amazing eSEM images to share... Please advice. (Unsigned, from User:AnBeCa)
Hi Arcadian. I agree that my inclusion of Cingulate sulcus in the merger of Cingulate gyrus into Cingulate cortex was over-enthusiastic – thanks for your attention to this.
It does raise an interesting issue though: 'sulcus' may refer either to a 'depression or fissure in the surface of an organ' (as defined at sulcus), or to the cortex contained therein. This leads to oddities such as the current text of Superior temporal sulcus: 'The superior temporal sulcus is the first sulcus inferior to the lateral fissure. It is involved in the perception of where others are gazing.'
Do you think this is potentially confusing? If so, should this be explained at sulcus, or should each '...sulcus' article be reworded, such as 'The cortex within the STS...'? Or am I making something of nothing? (I suppose 'gyrus' has an analogous pair of meanings, and that doesn't bother me so much for some reason...)
Thanks for your input as ever. Neurotip ( talk) 08:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I found a format that doesn't use extra vertical space. Please let me know if there's anything you don't like about it. — Codrdan ( talk) 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Can you explain the revert you did to the article??, and I cant understand why you didn't notify me before reverting my edit. please replay to my talk page MaenK.A. Talk 21:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ Myeloid blood tests}} is really very badly named. Nobody calls these tests by that name - it creates a level of organisation that does not exist in real life. Perhaps you could find a way of naming it better, but please change it. At any rate, coagulation has extremely little to do with myeloid lineage tests, unless you want to make it all dependent on platelets being myeloid. Again, wouldn't you prefer to organise this in a slightly different way? There are enough coagulation tests to put them in a separate box. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Arcadian-two comments - I noticed that you had added the ref for discontinuance of mivacurium in the US - that is not true in fact. It is still available in the US - it is just that it is not promoted heavily as it once was in the 90s - primarily because Glaxo got out of the anesthesia market in 1998/1999 - although the company still markets the portfolio including mivacurium in the EU. I therefore would like to have that false reference removed if possbile. Secondly, I have added material to atracurium, gantacurium and mivacurium - but I am handicapped by the lack of knowledge on drawing chemical structures on Wiki to illustrate some of the textual information - how can I solicit help from someone with this? Is there a sandbox equivalent for drawing chemical structures on Wiki? Thanks-- Sanjay ( talk) 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!-- Sanjay ( talk) 00:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
er excuse me. Its a cheek to merge these 2 templates without any prior discussion. You need to make the case first and it needs to be supported by others. I created template:ICD-10 personality disorders and did a lot of work on the template:DSM personality disorders.-- Penbat ( talk) 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I see that you undid my redirect of alcohol dependence to alcoholism. Currently the alcohol dependence article has listed ICD10 which says that dependence on alcohol is alcoholism but you say they are not the same. What difference is there between alcoholism and alcohol dependence in your view?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I was wondering what you thought about moving Pulvinar to Pulvinar nucleus (of the thalamus)? I was going to place it on Wikipedia:Requested moves, but I figured you could move it over the redirect if you agreed. Thanks. Cmcnicoll ( talk) 03:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The Medicine Barnstar | ||
You deserve another one because of your tireless and valuable contributions (especially the navigation bars). |
Mikael Häggström ( talk) 05:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I put a comment on Talk:Cortical blindness about your suggested merge (am I supposed to let you know here as well?) Silas S. Brown ( talk) 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
i just posted an insignificant little blurb there. by the way you do great work.
Hi Arcadian, you split out the toxicology section of several articles. My question is now was this near 100% removal necessary? The chromium article staes now that III is not very toxic while VI is carcinogenic. This two sentences are a little weak for a Goodarticle on chromium. The link to a Hollywood movie Erin Brockovich was left in and this is for the toxicology of chromium the for me least important fact. I would like to have a little bit more than two sentences on toxicology in the article. The splitting of articles for example arsenic and radon was done when the health part overwhelmed the rest of the article not at a point where it was a equally represented section.-- Stone ( talk) 21:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. You asked a question on the Davis Bacon articcle about where the act was codified. The answer is 40 U.S. Code §3141. Hope this helps!
Wildcard6 ( talk) 11:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hiya again Arcadian. I noticed that this article is mispelt. Barbituate overdose It should be Barbiturate overdose but I am not an admin so I cannot move the page over the redirect. I believe that you are an admin, perhaps you could fix this issue? Thanks.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you consider adding small one line intros to the new subsections of List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Parasitic_infestations.2C_stings.2C_and_bites? --- kilbad ( talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thanks for all your work on the template, it looks impressiive. due to my own form of dyslexia I do not do any text editing if I can help it, I just do the research and provide the information and references dolfrog ( talk) 17:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
How's school going. Any developments on what type of residency program you are looking for? --- kilbad ( talk) 18:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
You may want a navigation template just for the palmoplantar keratodermas. Just a thought, but they can be fairly overwhelming for an editor. Also, if you want my Bolognia login, just let me know. --- kilbad ( talk) 01:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you consider adding your cutaneous condition navigation templates to the bottom of the list? I think that might be another nice improvement. What do you think? --- kilbad ( talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I sort of liked the nav box for diabetes. I am not sure how this could not be seen as the main topic area? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I posted a tread at the medicine talk page. Is that possible? Could you help me? --- kilbad ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I tried updating the Template:Bleeding worksheet and making it more user friendly. I also added the template to the wiki page for each disease listed as well as the 4 coag tests. I'm not 100% fluent in wiki-formatting, but i gave the table my best shot with adding the v-d-e and the sortability etc. Plz lemme know what you think. Thanx, a fellow med student AZDub ( talk) 20:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi the table you removed was added after a discussion here, so please give us a reason why you removed it?? MaenK.A. Talk 10:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Could we talk about their placement in the lymph-related category before you remove them? --- kilbad ( talk) 01:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I managed to expand your one sentence article Epidermophyton floccosum to start class and nominated it for DYK. If you want me to add you to the credits, let me know. I was also wondering if you could find anything else to add. Joe Chill ( talk) 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion page for Laryngopharynx, as my proposed change affects an edit you have made a couple of years ago. Plamoa ( talk) 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rickettsia japonica, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.cfsresearch.org/rickettsia/research/diagnostic-assay-rickettsia-japonica.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 02:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, before I undo what you did, why don't you explain why you made the changes you did at Palmoplantar (including the move)? Why do you think it is inappropriate to call it a list of conditions instead of a disambiguation page? It's not a disambiguation page because none of those conditions would be called just "Palmoplantar." Making it a list of conditions provides a solution for anyone who does try just searching on that term. Propaniac ( talk) 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arcadian. Could you or do you have the capability of seeing deleted pages? If you would be so kind as to go to the deleted content of my subpage at User:CircafuciX/Lyrics and email the content back to me. I don't want to sound like I didn't understand policy but it was deleted because it was unacceptable for wiki since I released those rights to creative commons as poems/lyrics. I only wanted them there temporarily but never found a site to my liking where it can be more private and whatnot. Just so you know, I was here for about three years so I'm definitely not new to this process. Much appreciated. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 23:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you did all of the leg work on this template. Nice work. I'm a bit confused on why the Internal and External Jugular Veins are not listed as tributaries to the Brachiocephalic and Subclavian Veins, respectively. Should this be added or was it intentionally omitted because they are in the emissary vein template? Adamlankford ( talk) 08:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Arch Phys Med Rehabil and many other similar journals. Since you had some involvement with the Arch Phys Med Rehabil redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer ( talk) 23:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Wonder if I could get your opinion here [8] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The page has been moved four times now. Hope it stays put. Thanks again :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Trendelenburg's test , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Captain n00dle \ Talk 13:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I expanded the article IFAA. I would like to know your opinion. Thank you.-- Giselle Chamorro ( talk) 19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. Just to let you know that I've changed Thrombocythaemia to redirect to Thrombocytosis instead of Essential thrombocytosis. It just seemed more appropriate to me. Do you agree? Neurotip ( talk) 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Since you created both pages, it seems a good idea to ask for your input. What do you think about merging MPA into MP? There's some background information here.
Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the formatting and changes you made to the article, it was a great to find it all neat, tidy and logical. Blackash have a chat 11:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could explain why you reverted my edits to Template:Alcohol and health and if there was a legitimate reason for doing so? -- Monterey Bay ( talk) 22:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I wonder if you could take a look at Diverticulosis, an article which you worked on last month. The bulk of this article has been written by a single editor, who clearly knows his subject. However, he seems unfamiliar with the formatting of references and other Wikipedia formatting details. The references he provides are numerous, but he has left numbers to them littering the article, and the bottom of the reference list has a link to his user page. I'm a bit of a novice myself at such things, or I would attempt to fix these myself. Also, I have almost zero medical knowledge, so I'm reluctant to change the content of the article for fear of introducing factual errors. I have made a number of punctuation, spelling and grammar edits, but I think that's about as far as I can go with it. One last thing I should mention, if you do decide to edit the article, is that you may find yourself dealing with an "ownership" issue. Thanks, and cheers! -- Captain Infinity ( talk) 17:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. What do you think of changing "Never to Phase III" in the above template to simply "Development terminated", so it can be used for drugs that went to phase III but no further (such as torcetrapib and tasosartan)? Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 03:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Medrogestone 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. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Contribs
Muslim Editor
Talk 07:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mastitis , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Richiez ( talk) 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've nominated Medrogestone, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 10:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC) (By the way, I'm not exactly happy with the hook. Maybe you've got a better idea.)
Poo attack by SPA + sock (probable) at CP/CPPS. Broom needed. Thanks. TickleMeister ( talk) 09:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I e-mailed you. Again... --- kilbad ( talk) 22:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know if your the right person to ask, but I need help. I edit on an anime wiki, and I'm trying to create character infobox and episode infobox templates. Please Help. User:TheDarkSwordsMan
A discussion has begun about whether the article James Renner, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Renner until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Muboshgu ( talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You have the most edits on Urinary bladder so it seems appropriate to notify you of a requested move of Bladder (disambiguation) to Bladder, that some editors see as affecting Urinary bladder. Discussion is on Talk:Bladder (disambiguation). 69.3.72.249 ( talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The ref says "Pharyngitis is an inflammatory illness of the mucous membranes and underlying structures of the throat. The clinical diagnostic category includes tonsillitis, tonsillopharyngitis, and nasopharyngitis; inflammation also frequently involves the nasopharynx, uvula, and soft palate." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi !
Since you're the creator of a Google books template I'd like to make you aware of the following discussion:
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 16:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am a foreigner and a simple reader of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your job. Frankly say, Editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim, is in a wrong way, by colluding of some editors and admins there. Their IDs are: Therexbanner, Gladsmile, Narking, Christopher Connor, RobertMfromLI, NickCT, Beetstra, 7. These Users are trying by reverting correct edits of the article, and doing a sort of anagram and "misusing" information in sources, show Mr. Andre Geim (winner of 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics) is not a Jewish and he has another ethnic. They seem like pure (but a bit hidden)vandalism. All correct RS sources, like:
- http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1,
- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/,
- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/
- http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/07_a_3426604.shtml
- http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/osztaly/kemia/ih.pdf
- http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html
- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/
- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/
- …
clearly show that Mr. Andre Geim is a Jewish (he repeatedly mentioned about his Jewishness, [subject of self-identification]) in ethnical point of view and his family was originated from Germany(he also several times mentioned that his family are German [origin]). Nowadays German is a general word, which could means: Citizenship, Nationality, Origin, residentship, and so on. When Geim is taking about German being of his family, clearly and logically he talks about their origin before emigration to Russia. There is the same situation about Richard Feynman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman. By the way in a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, (that several times misused by above Users) Geim also said a story concerning Jewishness (clearly in religious point of view) of his grandmother, that of course it doesn’t mean that only his grandmother was a Jewish. Now in article as I checked the history of the article, above Users by reverting the correct edits there, try to present and show by their wrong way Mr. Geim an “ethnic” German person. The point is that in any RS sources, Geim hasn’t say that he has such ethnic, and he never used word “ethnic” there. Andre Geim won the Nobel Prize in the beginning of October; unfortunately, right after his winning until now, above Users kept the text of the article in a wrong position. In any case, if you have time, please check this Users carefully. By the way USER:Gladsmile, repeatedly reverted and undid the edits there, without any explanation(even wrong one). Personaly, seems like an extrimist Vandalism. Best Alexander468 ( talk) 17:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, You might want to edit List_of_ICD-9_codes_001-139:_Infectious_and_parasitic_diseases too (for a start), since you reverted my edits on the V codes page, which where providing exactly the same kind of links and, I believe, quality information. ComTeam 06:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey thanks for pitching in Arcadian! Wish I had the time... Cheers, Matto paedia Say G'Day! 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to ask someone about an issue I've had, and I rather randomly turn to you - it's not because you're near the beginning of some alphabetical list =-) The thing is, I've updated this image,
File:Surface projections of the organs of the trunk.png. However, to me, it looks flat now, for example in the articles
celiac artery and
human rib cage, because it has a different
aspect ratio. However, do you find the image abnormally flat in
celiac artery and
human rib cage as well, or is it just me?
Mikael Häggström (
talk) 10:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I was wondering if you could help me out. Now that Lymphoid is a disambig, several templates need their links fixed:
Could you take care of these? I'm not sure what's best. Heck, if you could just leave a note saying what should be used in each template, I'll be glad to do the editing. Thanks, -- JaGa talk 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Je vous remercie,
Votre utile, donner les moyens,
Et comment votre cœur généreux
Votre affiche désintéressement.
Je vous remercie pour votre gentillesse,
Je n'oublierai pas de sitôt;
Vous êtes l'un des plus belles personnes
J'ai jamais rencontré.--
180.191.54.108 (
talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Why doesn't the opioids template belong on ATC code N02 ( [9])? Just curious. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I hope this isn't a bother, but I was wondering if you have an opinion about the use of Thiokinase in the template {{ Lipid metabolism enzymes}}. Is it correct for it to link to the disambig, or should it link to a specific thiokinase? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 00:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It makes sense to have a separate article for intravascular lymphoma (IL), as not all intravascular lymphomas are B-cell derived. The reason I merged in intravascular large B-cell lymphoma (ILBCL) is-- it is very stubby... and I thought one stubby article is better than two.
ILBCL is not a synomym for IL as you imply by your edits. The article I cited (Wang et al.) makes this point as it attaches intravascular to a T-cell neoplasm. The fact that some people use IL and ILBCL interchangeably doesn't prove the point either-- it just means there is confusion in the literature. The one reference you provide [10] makes the point that the markers (T vs. B) aren't that important-- it is really the fact that they buggers are intravascular... which is also the clinically relevant point (as with no discrete mass lesion + non-leukemic-like blood results = hard to diagnosis before autopsy).
There is precedent in WP for this: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). HL is a category that includes NLPHL and classical HL (which is further subdivided in nodular sclerosis HL, mixed cellularity HL, lymphocyte rich HL, lymphocyte poor HL). On WP, HL isn't broken down into classical and non-classical (which are the clinically relevant categorizations). It is HL and NLPHL.
The article intravascular lymphoma was not created as a specific diagnostic entity; MEDMOS doesn't apply here AFAIK. Further, not all articles are a specific diagnosis with one clear etiology, e.g. cirrhosis. Nephron T| C 03:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. Good work on the Template talk:Organelles template to better represent undulipodium. I have an additional question that I will put on to that Talk page. I hope you will read it and respond. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 14:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. It makes sense to split alpha and beta thymosins. However the title of the section on betas should be beta thymosins, since the article is about a diverse family of proteins and not a single substance " thymosin beta". As something of a Wikipedia novice I do not yet know how to edit this myself. Jgedwards ( talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Jgedwards ( talk) 01:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi... I have reported the page hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 30 as I suspect it contains material lifted verbatim from copyright sources. I am notifying you as I notice you have made several edits to the article, though my report does not raise concerns with any of your contributions. I am inexperienced with copyright issues, and I am wondering about whether the article can be saved or if it will be necessary to restart from scratch (assuming my concerns are found to be justified, of course). I invite your comment on my report at the copyright report page. EdChem (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
A 2010 Cochrane review has just come out and wondering if you could comment further [11] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. Regarding {{ Cytoskeletal proteins}}, could you let me know which Light chain should be used in that template? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 16:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice job on the template, btw! I think you used the cell surface receptor deficiency template accidentally on the MAIS, CAIS, and PAIS pages. I got your back, bro. Jonathan.Marcus ( talk) 11:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
No!!!. This will keep us both busy for a while ;-) Boghog ( talk) 21:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Chimeric-humanizedmonoclonals. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Chimeric-humanizedmonoclonals redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). The same applies for the other monoclonal antibody template redirects that are superseded by your new navboxes. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 08:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. Thanks for your work on Ciliopathy.
I do, however, have a question about your recent edit to remove Category:Genetic disorders from the article. Your rationale was that it was redundant to the Category:Ciliopathy which you recently added to the article (and I believe you created that category as well).
I'm not much of a Wiki-knowledgeable person on the whole category thing, but I can't see, through looking at the category tree, where Category:Ciliopathy is necessarily a part of, or subset of, Category:Genetic disorders. That being the case, I can't see how the GenDisorders cat was redundant. Can you help me understand this? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 17:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian,
A while back I posted a merge proposal to merge Cleft hand into Ectrodactyly, following some comments made by another editor at WT:MED. No-one commented either way, other than me - even though I advertised the proposal appropriately. I came back to it today and had another look, and now I feel its part of a bigger problem. I still believe the two articles should be merged, and since no-one cared to express an opinion either way, other than me, I figured I should just go ahead and be bold. I started thinking that there should be some sort of umbrella article on hand deformity, and I found the stub you created last year, which only includes a link to Madelung's as an example. I don't really think that's such a great example, btw, because Madelung's is really a distal radius/wrist deformity, but that's just me being pedantic. Then I found a redirect from hand deformities into hand which had a pretty uninspiring list of conditions therein. I started expanding this a bit, but decided hand deformity is really worthy of its own article, at least to serve as a classification and starting point for readers to explore from. Considering everything that could potentially come under this umbrella of hand deformity, it could become a fairly substantial exercise of collating, linking, merging and redirecting! You may be aware I tend to edit here in a fairly intermittent fashion - too much going on IRL to dedicate time consistently - so its something I could plug away at from time to time, or I could publicise it as a collaborative thing at WT:MED, or I could just invite interested editors, like you, based on the histories of the atricles involved. I'm wondering what your opinion on this is, because you seem to have some interest, and because over the years I've been coming and going here I've noticed your approach to WP seems reasonable and well rounded. I look forward to hearing from you. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you. Matto paedia Say G'Day! 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC) BTW, this page could use a bit of archiving! Cheers, Matt
You may be interested in a discussion of this on my user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for removing all but one of these templates. There was a recent change to the template that has created a reference below the reference tag which causes the page to have issues and wind up in no refs backlog. Found on the first one that it was a reference and adding a ref tag below it worked because there were no other references on the page. We hope ( talk) 23:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you were wrong to remove the disclaimer I added to this template. In the section Eukaryote#Phylogeny there are five cladograms shown. (One could add a few more from the plethora of papers around, but it seems to me that five is enough to make the point: there is no consensus.) The template more-or-less corresponds to the first two cladograms (full references for all cladograms are in the article). It does not correspond to the next three, none of which show an "AH" grouping, as they keep the Chromalveolata+Rhizaria together. If there is any kind of consensus in very recent papers (2009 onwards) it is probably against the template's splitting off of Hacrobia, which is supported only by older papers. Hence I think it is quite misleading to show the template as though it is an agreed consensus classification when it is not. I certainly don't wish to enter into an edit war over this, but I think there are good reasons for a warning of some kind at this point, rather than a different template. Why do you think a warning is inappropriate? Would you prefer a changed template? Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Are some of your cutaneous condition-related templates ready for primetime? I would love to have them at the bottom of the list of cutaneous conditions. Thoughts? --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 01:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for this article, Phaeothamnales, that you created? It links only to an ncbi page, not authority for taxonomies at all, and that page gives your wikipedia article as a reference. I cannot find a single google book or scholar source, and all of the web pages I have looked at (not thorough) reference your article which references the ncbi which references your article... Please help by providing a reference, off-line references are okay. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 15:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You created this article on the Phaeista saying it is a "grouping" of heterokonts, from the literature you cite in the article. The abstract and the information from google scholar appear to indicate this is a clade, not a group, from a segregation initially done by Thomas Cavalier-Smith in 1995. The article you cite appears to only remove two taxa, not to disagree that it is a clade. Please post responses on the article talk page; I am cleaning up someone else's algae mess, so I'm not posting this where it belongs, the article talk, and notifying you, just to try to finish one thing. Thanks. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 15:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ditto above for Chrysista. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 16:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey -- I notice you do a lot of anatomy picture uploads from Gray's anatomy. I need a picture added so that I can use it in the newly created Underwood's septa article but I don't know how to work out the licensing -- it's the first picture that comes up when you search google images for "maxillary sinus septa." If you could help, that would be of great service. Thanx in advance for your consideration! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking some at the ACHOO syndrome article and I saw your merge from December of Photic sneeze reflex. That certainly was necessary as they appear to have been almost identical articles. Did you have to merge in other articles, or were they simpler redirects (there are at least three other names I can see for the same phenomenon)?
I was planning to clean up a few things on it but wondered your thoughts on that. For example, the spreading disease section. It appears to draw the conclusion that this condition causes sneezing, and because sneezing can cause disease, this condition can spread disease. The citation provided, however, doesn't make that conclusion; it only supports the latter point.
I would like to know what you think. Shadowjams ( talk) 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to ping you about the talk on nicotinic antagonist. 98.204.241.151 ( talk) 17:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lodger (Finnish band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lodger (Finnish band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MikeWazowski ( talk) 00:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny ( talk) 02:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I recently tried to improve the citations for Low residue diet based on internet sources. While I was able to find support for much of the article, a lot remains to be cited. Since according to the article history, you were the original author for most of its content back in 2005, I was wondering if you would happen to still have whatever sources you used at the time on hand? If you do, it would be much appreciated if you could add references to it, to help flesh out the article's sources.
Thanks, bd_ ( talk) 22:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trophic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trophic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Muhandes ( talk) 07:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Penile diseases, 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, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the
the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
50.80.139.102 (
talk) 17:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This move broke several transclusions of the template as articles are using {{glands}} which then became a double redirect ( Template:Epithelial types → Template:Epithelium and epithelial tissue). Just something to watch out for! Cheers Jebus989 ✰ 20:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you look the navboxes at the bottom of the p53 article? I can't figure out why 2 of the 4 navboxes aren't showing up correctly. Thanks. Cmcnicoll ( talk) 21:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Wondering if you are in support of the image of a person with CF or a diagram for the lead? Your comment was not clear. Thanks -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Wondering if we need the word intervention on its own line? We do not state disease or symptom for the other boxes thus IMO should not here for consistency. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Looking at where this is being used. Is MRI really an intervention? More of an imaging technique nothing is done. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've been invited to participate in mediation over the content User:Carolethecatlover wants to change in the Dyshidrosis page since I have reverted it more than once. I noticed you've reverted the same content recently, and it looks like you have medical experience that might be significant since the dispute is allegedly over Carolethecatlover's expertise, so I'll invite you to visit the case page and indicate whether you'd like to participate or not. Thanks! — Mu Mind ( talk) 11:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the purpose of this edit? It seems to only add a bit of cryptic display code whose function I do not understand. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 18:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I have recently created the above infobox which I have used here at Complete blood count. Still have stuff to fix. Do you have any further suggestions? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at Template:Breast cancer? I think there is potential for expanding it (e.g., to include Breast MRI and other screening procedures) that it's time to convert it over to the usual format. What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
You recently added SCnc and MCnc to molar concentration and mass concentration_(chemistry). I've studied chemistry, and I've never heard of these abbreviations. Are they really used? Maybe in your field, in medicine? Also, apart from the wikipedia article, a google search for "SCnc concentration" only yielded 1 single page where this abbreviation is used. I think the current location of the abbreviation is too prominent. Maybe something like this would be better:
"In medicine, the abbreviation MCnc is sometimes used for mass concentration"
RolfSander ( talk) 14:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Charles Franklin Hoover has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 09:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You've recently redrafted the Periodontology template and lots of things are now missing. For instance, one would think that the internationally recognized categories of periodontal diseases would be found within the perio template, but they are now not there. Could you explain, please, why it was changed so dramatically? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 06:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a great way to deal with external links. Wondering if we should look at applying it almost universally for medical pages? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Category:Cardiac procedures and surgery, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. NW ( Talk) 00:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
It is important that useful external links utilized by patients and caregivers not undergo blanket deletion on an arbitrary whim. The links provided are not meant for self promotion but serve as a crucial conduit for additional information, as well as medical second opinions for patients and families. Please refrain from arbitary deletion of external links , as you are frankly doing these patients a terrible disservice. I am happy to educate you about the importance of these links, especially the ones in the US. Thank you for considering this important request. Anirban Maitra, Professor, Johns Hopkins University. Amaitra1 ( talk) 01:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)amaitra1
You made some major changes to the RTA page a couple of days ago-not all of them have made it clearer in my view. I'd favour a merge back of the parts you split off-but would be up for a discussion/opinion gathering exercise.Cheers FelixFelix talk 09:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey Arcadian, where can we find ICD-9 codes for certain conditions online? Thanks Dr. Persi ( talk) 23:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious why you moved the French Paradox article to use a title in lowercase. I've reverted such moves in the past due to prior discussion on the article talk page. The view on the talk page (and also, I recall, among the Wikipedia Wine Project participants) is that this is a proper name rather than a generic term. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 13:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I'm wondering why you removed
this category from the article since it is a degenerative nerve disease. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I've reverted your removal [14] of Category:Neurobiological brain disorder from Oxygen toxicity as I would think that it fits the inclusion criteria for that category ("Any condition that affects the functioning of the brain and may be caused by genetics, metabolic, endocrinological, auto-immune, infectious agents, agents, extreme environmental factors triggering biological changes, or other biological factors are included.") and is not in a sub-category. Let me know if you don't agree. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that quite a few appropriate categories have been removed with HotCat (a semi-automated tool, IIRC) under your username. (Removing Hematology from the Eosinophilia article, etc.) Is this a technical issue, or some policy that I'm not aware of? Ronk01 talk 15:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian,
Just wondering why you removed Category:Medical treatments from Ketogenic diet. I think this is an appropriate category, though a more specific sub-category of that might be Category:Medical nutrition therapy, which doesn't yet exist. Thoughts? Colin° Talk 11:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Haemodialysis-associated amyloidosis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit
the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. I would suggest merging with a page based on
Haemodialysis
The.aviation.expert (
talk) 08:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
You updated the tables but not the the reference. Could I ask you to update the reference to the 2009 paper also? I am still awaiting a reply from Prof Notrangelo as to when the latest classification is to be published. JFW | T@lk 05:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Saw you removed the references to the categories Hematology and Congenital disorders. I think this is not right. 1q21.1 deletion syndrome can have a direct influence as a blood disease due to the fact that the TAR-genes are involved. Patients can have trouble with their thrombocypts, which appears to me as a blood disease. 1q21.1 deletion syndrome is a problem that starts at the moment of conception. So, it is definitely a birth problem in my opinion. What do you think? Regards, SpelgroepPhoenix ( talk) 08:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You started the article. I've now completely reworked it -- take a look! Nephron T| C 05:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian Thanks for adding the image in the Myoadenylate Deaminase Deficiency page. I found an similar image on several different websites that would be very helpful in understanding the article, but have not been able to find anything relating to copyright, and don't know how to upload images yet either. Could you please look at the following URL and let me know what you think? http://textbookofbacteriology.net/metabolism.html Thanks, Tom
Thanks! Tom Hi Arcadian I found an image on ChemWiki that would work, and the license is listed as: UC Davis ChemWiki by University of California, Davis is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States. Could this image be used for the AMPD1 article? If so, could you please insert it? I don't know how yet... sorry, but intend to learn with time. http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Organic_Chemistry/Organic_Chemistry_With_a_Biological_Emphasis/Chapter_10%3A_Phosphoryl_transfer_reactions/Section_10.2%3A_Phosphorylation_reactions_-_kinase_enzymes Thanks, 67.189.56.3 ( talk) 12:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Tom
Hi Arcadian. Would you mind taking a look at the new article antihypotensive agent? It seems to me that it might be duplicative of existing content, but I'm not sure. Also, I created Category:Antihypotensive agents to go with it, but can you also check if it is necessary and if it is categorized correctly? Thanks. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you re-worked cardiac amyloidosis.
Why was senile systemic amyloidosis (SSA) merged into the hereditary TTR form of amyloidosis ( transthyretin-related hereditary amyloidosis)?
AFAIK, SSA does not have mutated transthyretin - as per Westermark et al., who I had cited in the (old) SSA article ( old version of SSA article). OMIM seems to also state this. [15]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I think the redirect was in error --unless I am missing something.
Above stated... all the cardiac amyloidoses look the same at the light microscopic level. Ergo, the image I took of SSA could be borrowed for the hereditary form of TTR amyloidosis... until one of that specifically can be found. Nephron T| C 03:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree - split them into two different articles. I don't know how to do this - I'm a newb med student that noticed this studying for my final tomorrow. 161.253.113.170 ( talk) 20:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
What about subpage? Bulwersator ( talk) 07:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Please join a discussion ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. Presto54 ( talk) 07:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
In various places you have deleted a number of links, and replaced them with DMOZ refs. (Example: "melanoma" Revision Revision as of 23:37, 8 August 2011 (→External links: el -> DMOZ, per medmos) -- might be the next one), but you haven't added the removed links to DMOZ. This results in silent information (specifically link) loss, and should be prohibited. Please either add the removed links to DMOZ, or put them back into wp in cases where you have removed them. This ought to be general policy for all wp editing that replaces hard links w/DMOZ links.
Hi, I was trying to update our page on cAMP receptor protein, but noticed that there seems to be a problem with the refseq link. In particular, it should point at the refseq database, not the UCSC genome browser. Do you know what the story is? I saw this was previously discussed on the template's talk page, but still wasn't sure. Thanks! SocratesJedi | Talk 23:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You were not notified, I see, but an article you created on Trematode infection has been blanked as a copyright problem. Because you weren't notified, I'm relisting this one. Generally we don't look at listings until a week after the author has been notified, but under the circumstances I did look to verify that the IP who blanked the article has cause for concern. He does, as aside from a few words, the content is copied from its source.
I'm actually wondering - especially given that the date the source was accessed predates the creation of the article by a good span of time - if you split this from somewhere and forgot to attribute it.
There is no doubt that they predate us, [16]. I have not been able to find anything to verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain. If it is, of course, we'll want to provide full attribution.
If you have anything to add about the situation, please either place it at the article's talk page or at the current copyright problems board listing, at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 October 31. :) Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:NCI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator ( talk) 10:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the Olivopontocerebellar atrophy article and, in particular, my comments on the talk page? My impression is that unlike the term Shy-Drager, which has been deprecated, OCPA continues to be a frequently used term, but one whose meaning has changed from a particular disorder to a term denoting the degeneration of neurons in specific areas of the brain (regardless of the disorder causing this degeneration). Thanks, Sjsilverman ( talk) 20:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for creating this template. An excellent idea. DrMicro ( talk) 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I have altered this template to use the hlist class as described in WP:MEDMOS. This has involved some slight changes in presentation (the retirement of the → symbol as a list separator). Lmatt ( talk)
Dear Arcadian,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 04:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Low vision, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jonathan Deamer ( talk) 21:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Last month you commented here that Taylor should have to make a case on why Wikipedia would be better by having articles removed before doing so. He has created a page and without using Template:Moveto or actually participating in any discussion with the community about whether or not it would be good, has changed 10 distinct muscle articles into redirects to his new page. This is being discussed at Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand#Merge. I personally like the new page but I don't think it is a replacement for the 10 previous articles. I believe we have lost important information in doing this, and bots have already redirected all the muscle pages to his new article.
I reverted the redirects because I and some other editors (Xris0, Fama Clamosa) have voiced disagreement with it, but he has reverted that and once again removed the articles and changed them into redirects to his new page. I had at the time attempted a compromise, by adding a link to his new page on all 10 of the articles, but that was not enough. I am not sure what to do at this point, it's exhausting to go through and restore the redirects, and if he keeps changing them back, there would be no point fixing the old redirects since bots love to go around and 'update' them (which causes problems).
In reading his reasoning (he has requested we discuss it on the new article's talk page) do you think he's made enough of a case for it? I personally found it helpful how the old articles had images with the muscle highlighted, it made understanding where it was very easy. Y12J ( talk) 17:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm starting to get a bit sick of discussing arguments for and against this merger. As you're an admin, how do you suggest we proceed, short of hiring a team of lawyers versed in Wikipedia legal history? Thanks for your time and effort! Manfi ( talk) 10:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to keep posting, but I have submitted a request for mediation, as you probably are aware of. Manfi ( talk) 17:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You last reverted me on the extensor muscles several hours ago without adding anything to discussion. Do you intend to discuss this, or do you intend to edit war?—And again, you've marked them as minor.-- Taylornate ( talk) 14:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You are an administrator. You know the rules. Stop reverting without discussion.-- Taylornate ( talk) 01:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I replied to your message at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Fama_Clamosa_reported_by_User:Taylornate_.28Result:_declined.29.-- Taylornate ( talk) 03:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I kept coming back to the rectus femoris/quadriceps analogy, but your highlighting of the multiple characteristics and ways to group muscles and the movie analogy here seriously is perfect and made me literally LOL. BTW you have talk page stuff from 2008 still here. Would you be averse to me archiving some of it? Y12J ( talk) 20:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Besides the diff you linked, thought it might be useful to link to the archive where the completed discussion can be viewed:
This is an incident which might be relevant for mention in future mediations. Y12J ( talk) 21:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Xanthosine monophosphate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanthosine monophosphate until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at Prostaglandin D2, which is an article you contributed to. [17]. An editor just asked for help in revising info in that article, but seems to be info from just another research paper that more was about publicizing the authors. [18] Thanks! -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 15:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll probably get accused of 'canvassing' again by conveying this, but the MediationBot here said the following:
So as such, I hope you do not take offense at the bypassing of this bot exclusion through manual editing notification. You are the third person listed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. As an administrator well versed in the issue your contribution appears valuable. Here is a copy of what the bot posted on my page:
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the request for comment has also been closed. Y12J ( talk) 03:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The article Silandrone has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Ipatrol (
talk) 00:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian. Would you mind providing a reason for your block of the above user? That would make it easier to assess and respond to their unblock request. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 16:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Your talk page is nearly three hundred sections, when your block expires it would be nice if you could extend the common courtesy of archiving it or removing stale threads. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
In the light of this discussion, please be warned that any further edit-warring on any of those muscle articles will be met with blocks. Please seek dispute resolution via the steps outlined at WP:DR if you cannot get a consensus on the relevant article Talk pages. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I've just expanded Disease#See_also, and it occurs to me that it might be appropriate to have a navbox to tie together all these pages on the various classes of diseases. I'm sure there are more out there. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Since you have been heavily involved in the medicine navboxes, I just wanted to let you know that some of the navboxes for drugs have been replaced by very different boxes from Wikiproject pharmacy. For instance {{ Estrogens and progestogens}}, which has been removed from the pages where it was used, and replaced with {{ Estrogenics}} and {{ Progestogenics}}. Likewise for {{ Androgens}}. You may be interested in discussion of the replacement and new templates here Template talk:Estrogens and progestogens. Thanks. Zodon ( talk) 07:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi This is becoming too silly. Alexia is an acquired dyslexia and not a condition so what is all this nonsense about. Miss leading and miss informing readers. dolfrog ( talk) 23:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
i read your entries in the discussion in the article "Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak". i have interest in correcting the misnomer, removing the word "spontaneous" from the article title and putting it in its proper place as a categorization of csf leak and description of certain pathology to the condition. would be interested in your feedback in the discussion under "Move and name change" in which i just posted comment. -- Mr etler ( talk) 17:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Anti-inflammatory products has been nominated for merging with Template:NSAIDs. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 16:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on GJA1, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. kashmiri 23:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
While investigating
Wikipedia:Help desk#Regarding 2012 mesh terms I saw you have updated the default year in
Template:Infobox disease several times, for example in
[20]. It currently says 2011. Should both years always be the current year? {{CURRENTYEAR}}
does that: 2024. Maybe it's better to update it manually if somebody remembers it in early January but it may be forgotten.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 18:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
hey love your page hit me up whenever sexitay;*p 17:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC) |
Hi
I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.
Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.
Hope to see you there! -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 21:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Beryllium poisoning , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Scray ( talk) 05:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cannabis withdrawal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Cannabis withdrawal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. petrarchan47 t c 07:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
hello, I need your help with this little problem..
as you can see, there have been some inconvenintes, that truth is if they are doing well or poorly, they closed my discussion on the "talk page" practically because they want to, or they are right? thank you sir. MervinVillarreal ( talk) 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Years back you started this article. I do not know what to make of it, so I need your help here. I started an article on paratubal cysts and would think that hydatids of Morgagni (HoMs) should have a paragraph in this. As paratubal cysts have an ICD9 code, HoMs then have the same (as larger lesions or lesions that could lead to torsion need intervention). HoMs are represented in the recent medical literature and of interest as a possible problem. Now, where does "vesicular appendages of epoophoron" fit in? You may see that I first tried to place HoMs into it, but VAoE is shown as variant of normal development and has no apparent clinical issues that can be referenced. So it made more sense to keep Homs within the paratubal cyst article, as a special variant. Are VAoE and HoM really the same - HoMs do not seem to be derivatives of the epoophoron? I have never come across the term "VAoE", the references of the article do not work out, and I do no find articles about it? What do you suggest? Ekem ( talk) 02:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chlamydophila is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chlamydophila until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Arcadian! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doc, please see Template talk:Mood disorders. Can you help sort this out? Mood disorder topics need better disambiguation from bipolar disorder topics. Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You created this article in 2010. Please note that there is now a deletion discussion for it.
please take a look at the article international hepato-pancreato-bilary (sic) association. that's the problem - biliary is misspelled in the title, and, although i should know how to change it, i don't. the external links include a website, where it is spelled correctly. danke. Toyokuni3 ( talk) 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For the the great medical article work you have done. Hope to see you around more. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC) |
Hi, To you it might take a long trip down memorylane, but once you added some chemical formules to the lemma Heme, table "Major Hemes". In the lemma several chemical formulas are presented in a way suggesting there is only gross counting of the atoms present in the molecule. To me as a chemist the form used is rather strange. Carbon and hydrogen are menthioned first, as expected, but rest of the atoms I expect in alphabetical order of symbol. Is there any reason, biological, medical(?) to use a different order? If not so, I think I will feel free to write them in a more chemical way: eg C49H56O6N4Fe would change into C49H56FeN4O6. No big deal, but never the less. T.vanschaik ( talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!
If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I see you contributed to the Cardioplegia entry.
Now there is clearly something wrong in the following paragraph, which is incomplete in at least two points, perhaps the remnant of an unfinished edit:
"and then cold cardioplegia is given into the heart through the aortic root. Blood supply to the heart arises from the aorta root through coronary arteries. is in diastole thus ensuring that the heart does not use up the valuable energy stores (ATP- adenosine triphosphate) . Blood is commonly added to this solution in varying amounts from 0-100%. Blood acts a buffer and also supplies nutrients to the heart during ischemia."
However, I am not knowledgeable enough to fix it. Can you do it, or find someone who can?
Andreas Carter ( talk) 09:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Arcadian, Sometime ago you edited Dichotic listening and Dichotic listening test, i have just come across a new article Dichotic Listening which almost replicates the Dichotic listening test article. As an admin you would be best able to resolve this problem dolfrog ( talk) 21:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pro-Football-Reference.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Football-Reference.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian, I am not quite clear, for what reason you have separated ultrafiltration and ultrafiltration (industrial). I would like to merge this two articles. Regards -- Peter in s ( talk) 07:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The new black is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The new black until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 12:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes! Please enjoy this cute kitten as a gesture of admiration for your tireless work on the Wikipedia Med and Neuroscience templates. I am constantly amazed by how these all fit together and it must have required a lot of effort.
LT90001 (
talk) 20:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Superciliary arches, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Petter Bøckman ( talk) 13:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)
Hello WP:ANATOMY user! This is the first of what I hope will be ongoing quarterlies, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage
I would like to take some time on this first quarterly to evaluate the state of the project. We have the benefit of having a relatively-small group of articles that are, for the most part, relatively non-controversial. Additionally, for the majority of our articles, it may indeed be possible to create an article that reflects a significant proportion of the published literature. This is quite distinct from other projects.
However, it appears we only have 5 GAs ( Anatomy, Brain, Clitoris, Human tooth, and Leonardo da Vinci) and 4 FAs ( Immune system, Hippocampus, Cerebellum, and Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom), none of which relate to purely anatomical items, which constitute most of our mass. By 'anatomical items' I mean muscles, nerves, bones, blood vessels, veins, foramina, and so on, that constitute the vast majority of our articles. In fact, we only have one 'system' ( Immune system) at FA class, and none at GA class. We indeed only have 70 articles out over 4,000 at B-class. This scarcity is, I believe, for the following reasons: (1) lack of model articles (2) lack of appropriate guidelines, and (3) general sparsity of sourcing on many articles. How may these be addressed?
I hope that we are able to revitalise this project. Wikipedia has the capacity to become an excellent resource for anatomical information. I again welcome feedback on this quarterly or any aspects therein on the talk page for the quarterly, on my talkpage, or on the WP Anatomy talk page here. Kind regards, LT910001 ( talk)
I am trying to get the template:disease infobox working in this language [21] Would you be so find to help?
Would also love to have the cite templates working. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Those interested in applying should complete the online application form by 'Friday January 17th. Interviews with short-listed candidates will be held via webinar in late January or early February. The successful candidate should be available to start work in February or March 2014. Cheers and thanks! Ocaasi t | c 22:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I see you created Template:Google_books_with_page, and there are a few pages using it. As it comes up when searching for templates, but has no documentation, please would you either document how to use it, or merge it to another? – Fayenatic L ondon 22:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Template:DorlandsDict has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. LT910001 ( talk) 10:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mod. Pathol.. Since you had some involvement with the Mod. Pathol. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Randykitty ( talk) 14:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Phlebostatic axis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
LT910001 (
talk) 08:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Antibacterial#Propose_move_from_.22antibacterial.22_to_.22antibiotics.22 LeadSongDog come howl! 01:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've chosen today to be the official start of the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. You are welcome to participate in the opening ceremony, which consists of making a visit to its talk page and leaving a or other sign of luck. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 14:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#2)
Hello WP:ANATOMY participant! This is the second quarterly update of goings-on in WP:ANATOMY, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list
On any given week we have at least 4-10 editors making significant contributions to our articles, with probably more than double this making minor edits. As an editor, I am often wondering: with so many articles, where to start? There is so much to be done (as always, on Wikipedia!), and I aim here to provide a comprehensive list of venues within our project. If I've missed any, please let us know on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page.
An editor might edit:
Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Anatomy by User:Mdann52, using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 07:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Inferior border. Since you had some involvement with the Inferior border redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LT910001 ( talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vertebral border. Since you had some involvement with the Vertebral border redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. LT910001 ( talk) 22:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Arcadian, Regarding the redirect Uniport which you created, the same name also applies to University of Port Harcourt, I think it's best a disambiguation page be created so it can be shared with other pages where the name is applicable. Please do let me know what you think. Thank you. Stanleytux ( talk) 20:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the comment above at #Palmoplantar that this page is too long. May I archive it for you? – Fayenatic L ondon 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Toxic metal poisoning, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Category:Dietary mineral toxicity, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
A reader contact Wikipedia and asked an obvious question about Odontoma
In 2009 you added the statement:
22% of odontogenic tumors are odontomas.
Two years later, an IP added the statement:
In 2011, 66% of odontogenic tumors are odontomas. University of Louisville School of Dentistry.
The IP had only two edits ever. I am hoping you can sort this out.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 22:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#3)
Hello WP:Anatomy participant! This is the third quarterly update, documenting what's going on in WikiProkect Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list
{{
Recent changes in Anatomy}}
Anatomical terminology is an essential component to all our articles. It is necessary to describe structures accurately and without ambiguity. It can also be extremely confusing and, let's face it, it's likely you too were confused too before you knew what was going on ("It's all Greek to me!" you may have said, fairly accurately).
In the opinion of this editor, it's very important that we try hard to describe anatomy in a way that is both technically accurate and accessible. The majority of our readers are lay readers and will not be fluent in terminology. Anatomy is a thoroughly interesting discipline, but it shouldn't be 'locked away' only to those who are fluent in the lingo – exploring anatomy should not be limited by education, technical-level English fluency, or unfamiliarity with its jargon. Anatomical terminology is one barrier to anatomical literacy.
Here are four ways that we can help improve the readability of our anatomical articles.
This essay is provided in full on WP:ANATSIMPLIFY.
This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list
Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Please check question at bottom of Template_talk:Monoclonals_for_bone,_musculoskeletal,_circulatory,_and_neurologic_systems. I think a link from your original needs to be a bit more specific? But only if the suggested 'specific' is correct... :-) Thanks, Shenme ( talk) 19:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:WaynesburgAnatomicModel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Lymphatics of lower limbs has been nominated for merging with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Abdominal lymph nodes has been nominated for merging with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Thoracic lymph nodes has been nominated for merging with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Lymphatics of upper limbs has been nominated for merging with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Lymphatics of head and neck has been nominated for merging with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Fourth ventricle has been nominated for merging with Template:Ventricular system of brain. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) ( talk) 02:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:MUNAnatomy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
In recognition of your amazing contributions, I am constantly taken aback by the breadth and scope of your edits, which I see wherever I go. Thanks for your significant impact on the medical & anatomy (and probably other) spheres here! Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC) |
Template:Stedman's has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:UWashSIG has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Sex hormones has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) ( talk) 04:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox medical condition has been nominated for merging with Template:Authority control. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Alakzi ( talk) 21:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)