Email: I am reading email but not nearly every day
This is Richiez's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
If you leave me a message here, I will respond here. Please do not leave talkbacks on my talkpage. |
Today is Sunday, April 28, 2024; it is now 06:34 ( UTC/ GMT)
Hello, Richiez, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
By the way, are you interested in Medicine? (I saw your edit at Inflammation. I'm an EMT, thinking about going to physician assistant school. Anyway, Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything.
Again, welcome! Peace, delldot | talk 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you have disputed my words on the Wilhelm Gustloff article. I assure you I have done extensive research on the tragedy and the aftermath. The words of Grass are opinions at best. Most people who know aboout the tragedy do believe that the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff was in fact a war crime, and hardly any of these people are on the far Right as Grass claims. This is supposed to be an information site, free from bias. I was merely stating the other side of the story, just without the citation some people, like you, would like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.203.38 ( talk) 07:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Inflammation is not infection, 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 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.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that
administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{
hangon}}
to the page and state your intention on the article's
talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
MarcoTolo 01:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I should have been a bit more bold, but I do not have the time to repair that, nor was I aware that particular citation style was outlawed, I just knew it wasn't correct. In either case, it'll be fixed. There's no problem. Khargas ( talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Richiez, it is my impression that you loathe robotic surgery and think that it is useless. You have every right to your opinion. Your point is that the long-term benefits of robotic surgery are yet to be proven. I agree with you. However, the immediate benefits are indisputable. Robotic hysterectomy has at least the same immediate benefits as total laparoscopic hysterectomy. The problem with total laparoscopic hysterectomy is that most GYN surgeons are not interested in performing it. This is why most hysterectomies are still performed open. And that is precisely the reason why robotic hysterectomy is growing so quickly.
Thank you very much for not deleting my work this time. Lisa11777 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, I think it might be good to move the discussion to the Hysterectomy talk page, it may be of more general interest.
I did read many promising things about robotic surgery and remain sceptical, some of the claims appear unrealistic and strangely made up comparisons. My impression is that time required for surgery is still excessively long and rate of complications comparable or only slightly better than for classical laparoscopic surgery. It does not really matter if this is because of the learning curve - the fact that not enough surgeons are good enough to perform it better than traditional surgery is very relevant for the patient. Keep in mind nobody would like to be a patient in the starting end of this tough learning curve. Another aspect - so far robotic surgery was performed mostly by top surgeons. Only time will show what happens when it "hits the streets".
Anyway, in a wikipedia article personal opinion should not matter that much. The article can have any kind of information if it is in the appropriate context. For robotic hysterectomy it should be clear in the article that it is an emerging and essentially unproven technique until it becomes more widely used and more data exists. We should not kill it and we should not promote it. There is so many other things that require loads of work in the article. Richiez ( talk) 14:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Previously you explained that robotic surgery has a tough learning curve and now you are trying to explain me how easy it is. Is it possible that a test drive is somewhat deceptive?
We are speaking about a technique which does not appear to have reached anything like 0.1% market share. Meanwhile it is not easy to finding reliable basic data for established procedures. You would think that with some 700,000 hysterectomies in the US it should be easy to find out something as trivial the mortality rates of the most frequent procedures. No way - the only thing that I found out after reading too many paper is that biggest mortality risk is beeing Medicare/Medicaid insured (HR 2.2-2.4).
Anyway, do you have suggestions what should be in the article? Actually there is so much that could be improved that I do not know where to start. Richiez ( talk) 21:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The 0.1% market share was my impression after reading a few dozen abstracts on medline. Do you have a source for your 10%? It was my impression that laparoscopy as whole has around 10-15% or less, much less robotic surgery. Also do not forget other parts of the world.
No I do not think it is a fad although the term "robotic surgery" is rather unfortunately chosen in my opinion.
Cholecystectomy or other kinds of surgeries may be a good indicator of things to come. But every new technique needs some time to find its place, sitautions when it is particularly good, bad or useless, data on counterindications, experience how to deal with problems, experience with training of staff. Richiez ( talk) 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. The figure is worldwide so that would give perhaps 0.5% market share. Maybe more in the US but I do not have the numbers. Not that market share would matter that much, the amount of good publications is more important. Richiez ( talk) 13:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. The figure is worldwide so that would give perhaps 0.5% market share. It may be a lot more impressive in the US but for whatever reason they choose to publish the worldwide figure.
Anyway, thanks for your suggestions. Regarding the WP article it is certainly possible to add more details about robotic surgery but some balance should be maintained - the other methods and sections could use plenty more details as well and atm they are still more important than robotic surgery. Richiez ( talk) 13:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The 1.8 mio hysterectomies worldwide estimate is wrong by several orders of magnitude. Richiez ( talk) 14:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a little common sense. 700,000 for a population of 240 mio. 1,100,000 (the rest) for a population of 6 billions? UK has a rate (per capita) close to the US, Germany and rest of Europe and Russia around 2/3 of it. This alone is more than your 1.8 mio and does completely ignore China, Africa, India and Southern America among others - approx 80% of world population and especially in China and Southern America they have not diminishing rates of hysterectomy. Under the assumption that rest of the world has 60% of the US rate you get 10,700,000 per year. You can tweak the numbers a bit but 1,800,000 is a joke. Richiez ( talk) 13:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
This does not lead anywhere and your US centric attitude is not wikipedia policy. If you want to include information about "market shares" of the different techniques try to find a single reputable source that lists the market shares of all variants for any particular industrial country. The information would be interesting to have but must pass reality checks. Most of the links you provided above do not pass any reality check. France and Germany have a hysterectomy rate that is 50-80% that of the US rate, not 4 times lower as some associate professor wants you to believe. Russia and much of eastern Europe were traditionally hyster-happy and this is changing only very slowly.
You think that I have something against robotic hysterectomy? Not really. If the US would convert to 100% robotic hysterectomies everyone would be happy: there would be 90% less hysterectomies because nobody could pay them and there are not enough surgeons who could perform them were they doing hysterectomies 24 hours a day. Health care providers would feel real economic pressure to improve on alternatives. The few women who would still have hysterectomies would have much better care and surgeons would get much more money for less hysterectomies. So go ahead and push it but wikipedia is not the platform for this. Richiez ( talk) 23:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this is getting ridiculous, you are implying things which I never wrote and incidentally are neither my opinion nor do I wish to discuss them. I see no point continuing this kind of discussion. If you think that I have introduced any bias into the article be more specific. It is hard to avoid noticing that all but one of your edits are about robotic surgery so you seem to have a great interest in that. Want to explain your motivation?
If you want to improve the article go ahead. Have a thorough look at relevant wikipedia policies and how some of the better medical articles in wikipedia are written. Its no secret that the hysterectomy article currently leaves much to be desired. Please respect that the kind of number juggling that is perfectly fine in talk pages should not appear in medical articles. If you want to claim that robotic surgery has a 5% market share worldwide find a source that says exactly this but its generally not acceptable to take controversial numbers from different sources and combine them to compute a market share. If DaVinci doesn't publish market share its their decision. Richiez ( talk) 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not against discussion of robotic surgery but not on my talk page. How about improving robotic surgery. Robotic surgery can also have its place in the hysterectomy article if it is in approximate proportion of significance - which is where the approximate market share would be interesting for me. It is not terribly useful to describe something that most women can not have as of today.
Its ok if you are interested in robotic surgery only but the hysterectomy article has more serious problems. I have my own special interests which you can easily see if you look at my contributions, in fact I only stepped in for the hysterectomy article because it was even more desolate than it is now. But apparently you did not care about the overal shape of the article as long as it contained your statement that robotic hysterectomy is the fastest growing thing? Richiez ( talk) 13:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine, at least I see what is your point. If you want a revolution wikipedia is not the platform of choice. Any blog or personal website is much better for that purpose. If you have an activist website there is even a chance that it could be linked from wikipedia.
Many laparotomies are indeed avoidable - almost all are avoidable in principle. Do not get carried away, many revolutions went wrong. There can not be a general recommendation for all cases. Today vaginal hysterectomy appears to be the best alternative in many cases - it may be robotic laparoscopy tomorrow. Progress is painfully slow and in retrospect you would wish many methods but especially medications had been tested even longer before they were unleashed. It is one of the problems in surgery that FDA approval procedure comparable to new drug evaluation is not required for most novelties. Robotic surgery had some evaluation because it introduced new tools but that is far from the scrutiny that new drugs have to pass.
One thing to keep in mind, all variants of hysterectomy are relatively safe and free of serious adverse effect short term. The long term effects is what causes much greater concerns and unfortunately data is completely lacking to be able to evaluate if some technique has advantages regarding some particular adverse long term effects. It looks so simple, a smaller cut or bigger cut, more or less blood but how does hysterectomy cause renal cell carcinoma? Is it true that laparoscopic procedures carry a greater risk for RCC than laparotomic?
The hysterectomy article can of course list all variants so women have a chance to educate themselves. The robotic section can be as big as you wish if you volunteer to improve the other sections so that it is not out of proportion and respect wikipedia style. My impression is that it would be better to improve the robotic surgery article and link it form hysterectomy.
Respecting wikipedia style is not tyranny. It should be obvious that if you would reinstate the paragraph in the style as I have deleted it a few times you gain absolutely nothing - people will only turn away in disgust thinking that this is the most primitive form of advertisement. Richiez ( talk) 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding my "bias" towards vaginal hysterectomy - I am trying to give a reasonable interpretation of the Cochrane Review which is linked from the article. Of course there are many problems with every approach but that is the best data I have. I tried to obtain more detailed data on various kinds of complications with various techniques. I found many and they all give inconsistent and conflicting views which makes me believe that the Cochrane review is the best data that I have seen so far.
Laparotomy gets away pretty good in my opinion, if it is not clear from the comparison section than I will amend it somehow. I am currently somewhat sceptical about laparoscopic hysterectomy, and before robotic surgery can demonstrate how much better it is than I am obviously taking it with some caution as well - a case of difficult parents.
It is not the matter whether I take it seriously, I am SciFi fan - but in a wikipedia article about medicine you can not make claims that have yet to be proven.
What is so wrong about the current description of robotic hysterectomy anyway? I think the only thing that can be improved is the technical description. You can add to its advantages in the comparison section as more data becomes available. I am cautious because of the usual pitfalls of comparing old methods with expensive technology like only top surgeons perform it, manufacturer sponsoring, economic pressure etc.
You think women should be educated which is right. The problem is there is not even enough data to educate them about the options that are widely available now.
I do wholeheartedly agree that there should be a table with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Obviously I had something like that on my mind when I started the comparison of techniques section. Did not get far - no data on long term outcome by technique, very limited data on mortality rates, only meaningful data on complications is the Cochrane report which is not enough to make a detailed table of complication by technique. For some variants not even the most basic data is available - how many LAVH procedures do US surgeons perform?
Also, "old" techniques are constantly evolving and what one surgeon can do with one technique another can do better with another.
What else is left? General wisdoms like length of surgery, hospital stay, approximately what is doable by which technique and trivia of that kind which someone of Mr Walids stuff is constantly pushing into this section to increase citation counts.
One particular problem is that much of data from the US is heavily blunted. In the US, beeing medicare/medicaid insured is the biggest independent mortality risk for hysterectomy (HR 2.9, http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/335/7/483). When you take into account which variants of surgery these women will receive in 99% of cases you know which one should come out shining best because medicare/medicaid patients almost never have a chance to get this.
Speaking of that there should be also a table of risk factors and the alternatives section needs to mention the 2 best available alternatives and provide comparisons. Richiez ( talk) 12:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you would read the sources that have been linked from the article for weeks now you would know that in some countries the great majority of surgeries is not by laparotomy (PMID 11319467). Richiez ( talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I am saying that the US is not the only state on the planet and something that is completely unheard of in your country is standard practice in other places. Imo it is very important to compare data from different regions and countries, the fact that some 65% of hysterectomies are by vaginal route could be certainly very interesting for many people as it clearly demonstrates how much laparotomy could be reduced. It would be also interesting to know why this is possible in France - wonder if it has anything to do with the strong self- and body- consciousness of French women but the article does not say anything about that. Richiez ( talk) 22:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I was never saying anything else. Also I am fine with your latest change.
Regarding the wildfire, I have not yet written the French vaginal hysterectomy part into the article. Of course it is ok to write both, in fact it would be very nice if there were a table listing a few countries and as many techniques as we can find data for. Table would be imho better than having this numbers/claims spreckled all around the place and getting outdated as things change.
Btw I hope you find good sources for your claim of a wildfire. The link from the manufacturer earnings conference is not well suited for a medical article, a statement from a major health provider or in the worst case an activist group or newspaper that does not directly quote the manufacturer would be much better.
I will be away for some time so play with it as you like. Richiez ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Good to know what your intention is. Richiez ( talk) 23:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Some friendly soul placed a few useful links on your talk page, among others the manual of style which links to the manual of style for medical articles and many others. If you follow these nothing can go wrong. There is also about a hundred pages about sources, citations and related issues. Each of those has talk pages where you can ask for help. And whoever placed it there did really mean that you should read it and understand it before you start editing articles. You can educate people but wikipedia has rules how that can be done.
And please stop getting silly. Richiez ( talk) 01:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Please look at the help pages you have been provided with and ask for help at the respective talk pages.
I have never claimed that the article is my property and I am open to criticism. However this is not a constructive discussion and I will stop replying to your comments until you change attitude.
You can safely ignore me, wikipedia is not my property. Others will keep an eye on you and enforce Wikipedia rules.
Once again, this place is not for advocacy. It is much easier to get a personal webpage where you can publish anything you like.
If you think I am unfair ask for help, wikipedia has rules and guidelines for it and someone will love to help you. I will completely ignore all your comments and if I see any disruptive editing or other bad behavior I will ask some experienced administrator to take care of the problem.
Hi Richiez,
Thanks for your contribution to the Optimal decision article. It's not entirely clear to me what the phrase "An optimal decision in nondeterministic systems is is the decision with the best utility/risk ratio." that you added refers to. If you by "nondeterministic system" mean a system with uncertain outcome (such as described further on in the article), the optimal decision is as I see it a decision such that no other available decision options will on aveage lead to a better outcome (according to whatever system of rating goodness is used). The utility/risk ratio is only one particular such goodness measure, and I cannot see how it is better suited for nondeterministic systems unless you mean expected utility/risk ratio.
Best wishes,
-- Winterfors ( talk) 18:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. That is what I would have done intuitively but I hoped there would be a "canned" and mathematically usable formulation for all that. Assigning infinite negative utilities for risks is problematic - we have a more or less arbitrary defined utility mapping (such as -inf for certain risks) while the probability density and the set or continuum of choices may be physically defined. Such models require special attention otherwise they do not mix well.
Expected utility hypothesis should probably be linked from the article? It has a nubmber of links such as risk aversion and prospect theory which I consider interesting alternatives to your definition as they try accomodate psychological factors like overestimating highly improbable large risks - even if that means that the resulting choice may not be optimal in a mathematical sense anymore.
Still, neither elaborates the "avoid certain risk at all cost" scenario particularly well. Richiez ( talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
--- block/unblock details removed ---
I am behind the NAT of my provider and have no influence which IP I will be assigned and several dozens maybe hundreds of users typically share IPs in this range. I have no idea why the user has been IP blocked but it is pure coincidence if he has been assigned the same IP like me. Richiez ( talk) 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
fyi: it:Discussioni utente:Xqt #Interwiki links for Analgesia and Farmaci antalgici - Xqt ( talk) 16:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at WP:DERM, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can send the login information to you if interested? Regardless, thanks for your help on Wikipedia! --- kilbad ( talk) 20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The edit to which you refer is suggested by AWB and one I typically go along with. It doesn't result in any visible change to the article, but saves file space, makes source code easier to read, and, as you point out, is easier to type. See Wikipedia:Wikilink#piped_links. -- LilHelpa ( talk) 22:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually no. Got basic information through google and worldcat search:
Trying to find someone at Tilburg Netherlands who could bring me at least copies of a few front pages and the content quoted by Dr. Alexandra Colen.-- Remind me never ( talk) 00:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It is being suggested that there is a consensus now on the use of 'uncircumcision', and editors have 24 hours to register their view on this. Your input would be appreciated. - MishMich - Talk - 00:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
We should go by what the ref says rather than adding our own analysis. PMID: 7473816 says "Taken together, these well-established risk factors accounted for approximately 47% (95% CI = 17%-77%) of breast cancer cases in the NHEFS cohort and about 41% (95% CI = 2%-80%) in the U.S. population." Thus this is what we should have IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. --- kilbad ( talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the structure of the Code. For that, see Code of Canon Law. Thanks and God bless! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 16:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Richiez, can you recommend a specific revisionID of the breast cancer article for us to use in the Version 0.8 release? We're trying to wrap things up now. Many thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 02:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC). Also, do you think this version of the Atorvastatin article is OK? Someone just added a paragraph in the "adverse effects" section which looks very reasonable and balanced, but I know such things are often controversial - can you take a look? Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 02:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The length of the article is irrelevant. All information must be sourced reliably, avoid weasel words and be notable in nature.
"While human males may have frequently wished and attempted to breastfeed babies documented cases are exceedingly rare and may involve pathologic conditions."
The statement is POV as it is pejorative by saying "frequently wished" and "may involve pathological conditions" these are weasel worded and subjective. There are no sources backing up the claim and the whole phrase is badly worded and unverified. It could just be that you have added because that is what you think which is not how the works. Please see WP:notable WP:POV WP:verify and WP:weasel, for what can and cannot be included in an article. This statement wholly misses all of those points and fails to meet the standards for inclusion. -- Lucy-marie ( talk) 22:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The ref says "Our findings suggest that moderate physical activity, including brisk walking, may reduce postmenopausal breast cancer risk and that increases in activity after menopause may be beneficial." Thus we should say something similar. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Richiez,
Thank you for giving me some constructive criticism on my edit on Hypothyroidism. I will work with the existing articles next time for citations.
Regards, Ellen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen Ada Goldberg ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Richiez,
Thanks for extending a welcome. I'm all for working together harmoniously.
I came to Wikipedia from a forum that discusses hypogonadism, where some individuals wanted to lower their prolactin based on the statements that you've authored. They blindly believed that men should have a prolactin level of 2-4 ng / mL, simply because you said so.
I have nothing against you (I don't even know you), I'm just a bit flabbergasted by your insistence that I not update this unsourced information that I've repeatedly shown is incorrect. You insist that normal prolactin levels are between 2-4 ng / mL, and yet you cannot find a source to back it up. I've shown you two medical journal articles involving over a thousand subjects that establish this value to be much higher, at 10-11 ng / mL. Furthermore, I've shown you three medical journal articles that detail how prolactin at levels below 5 ng / mL actually are associated with pathology such as infertility and the metabolic syndrome. By preventing me from updating, not only are you in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines, you could actually be misinforming people in such a way that could ultimately be harmful to their health, as is the case with the forum I previously mentioned. I find this very frustrating.
Speaking of Wikipedia's guidelines, I would like to point out that your editing etiquette is quite nonstandard. For example, when you are the author of unsourced statements, and you insist upon their inclusion despite evidence that they are incorrect, then you are guilty of original research (see WP:NOR). By preventing anyone from updating your information, you are guilty of ownership ( WP:OWN). By deleting the section entirely instead of letting someone update the incorrect information with sourced information, you're doing a little of both. I'm not stating this to personally attack you, I'm simply identifying what is happening.
I actually do assume that you are acting in good faith; you obviously believe strongly that you are right, and that you are providing good information. However, the information is simply inaccurate, and in this case, downright harmful. I hope you can see where I am coming from, and you take the time to work with me and read the sources that I've provided you. StructureWiki ( talk) 23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thus moved down and put more common methods first. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder: [1]. It's been a year, so I thought you might have forgotten. Best, :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Charmingworry". The reason given for Charmingworry's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigatio
Accept reason: Autoblock lifted. Closedmouth ( talk) 16:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do not ever autoblock this IP range. It is a dynamic address of a large provider and the culprit will get a new address in another range next he connects to the internet. It does however have the potential to affect many innocent users. Richiez ( talk) 16:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Added WSJ refs to article. IP comes from UAE, natch. [2] Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The interaction with Statins deserves a place in the lead. If Weingaertner specifically says the health claims were misleading, that contention should be spelled out in the body text, not just mentioned in passing in the lead. The term misleading implies (at least to my ear) a deliberate deception rather than an over-optimistic hypothesis. As with any controversial issue, countervailing opinions in credible sources should also be noted. Dankarl ( talk) 13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.
This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets ( extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.
We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!
I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.
Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.
Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org.
Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 01:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the note. I came across a paper relating uterine fibroids to renal cell cancer and since this seemed to be (1) important and (2) not present on the wiki page it seemed as worthwhile addition. However 'the tale grew with the telling' and Im inclined to agree with you. Im not sure if there is enough material to justify its own article. I do know how many stubs (at least vaguely) there are in WP and I'm not sure I really want to add to their number without reasonable justification. Do you think it justifies its own article based on its current length or not? If not have you any ideas on how it should be worked into the current one? DrMicro ( talk) 19:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added a little more to this section. Having thought about this a little more and with the additional material I am inclined to agree with you that this is now too much for this section and probably deserves a page of its own. I will get around to creating this shortly. DrMicro ( talk) 07:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the familial uterine fibroids. I concur with you over the Mesh system for rare diseases - its not the easiest to determine what to place in the infoboxes. DrMicro ( talk) 11:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The new version of the statement of treatment is an improvement. However as I have said on the talk page I am unaware of any studies showing a significantly increased risk of malignancy over that in sporadic cases. If you are aware of such a study I would be most grateful if you could reference it. DrMicro ( talk) 11:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I agree that the position is unclear at present and that this condition should be kept under review. DrMicro ( talk) 15:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for the message which you left on my userpage today (Wednesday 16 May 2012) on the references related to magnesium - I thought at first you might also be advising me with references relating to osteoporosis (you may notice that I have left some references on the talk page of the article on osteoporosis). I have not read the reference to the Wikipedia guidelines on medical sources in depth yet (I just had a quick glance at it) but it will, I am sure, prove helpful. Once again, thank you for your help, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 14:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Richiez. I started a section on the Vagina talk page about your recent changes. See Talk:Vagina#Changes about anatomy and sexual activity. [3] Flyer22 ( talk) 19:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I posted a new section at Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases#Does 'Third Reich 1933-1945' really belong here, which you might be informed on. You were engaged in the issue in the past and I's like to see if there is any consensus on how to move forward. Insomesia ( talk) 04:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
- I have been hit by "open proxy" block by User:Dennis_Brown - all I get is "Editing from 82.113.122.166 has been blocked (disabled) by Dennis Brown for the following reason(s):
Open proxy".
This is a known issue - large mobile operator with NAT and needs to be finally whitelisted. Absolutely no open proxy because as mentioned this is behind a NAT. Richiez ( talk) 13:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Block message:
IP/open proxy block
Accept reason: It looks top me as though you are probably right, but to make sure I have asked for a check at
Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests, as well as consulting the blocking administrator. Sorry that you are (yet again) being inconvenienced in this way. I hope itcan be cleared up soon.
JamesBWatson (
talk) 14:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Richiez ( talk) 13:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.
Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.
Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. James F. (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
If you check the history and also the redirect target you'll see why I redirected it. The article was started by the proprietor of a company making breast thermography equipment, and breast thermography is being touted as a quack diagnostic tool for breast cancer. This is reasonably complex and is covered in detail in the redirect target, to do it twice would involve substantial redundancy - especially since the same conflicted individual also made substantial changes to Thermography (medical) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), also in support of his business interests. "Thermography has been around for many years, and some scientists are still trying to improve the technology to use it in breast imaging. But no study has yet shown that it is an effective screening tool for finding breast cancer early. It should not be used as a substitute for mammograms." American Cancer Society (emphasis added). And you'll see from the article histories that this is precisely what it's being promoted for here. Don't be confused by the redlinked user page, see here. Guy ( Help!) 13:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi thanks for working with me. I worked over the section. The expansion of the lede became essay-like with the speculative, unsourced screening/treatment plans, and the other matter was redundant. I think it flows better now. Jytdog ( talk) 14:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou for notifying me of
WP:MEDRS. I didn't know about it. I just added the link as there wasn't a link referring to "Mirena". Sorry about that.
--
Inlandmamba (
fruitful thought) 15:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Part of the definition of gynecomastia is that it is enlargement of the male glandular breast tissue. It is not referring to the enlargement of breast tissue in females. Please see here ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19880691) and here: ( http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2276281) Early breast development in girls is known as premature thelarche. Also, please do not remove well-sourced information such as the concept that neonatal gynecomastia is from the maternal transfer of placental hormones. If there is anything you should have gathered from our discussion, it is that it may be a correct, albeit an incomplete explanation for it. This means you should add to it, not remove it and it is acceptable for things to be repeated in different sections in a wikipedia article. That information belongs in the causes or pathophysiology section and it deserves brief mention in the epidemiology section since it is self-limited. Please refrain from further changes like this or discuss them on the talk page before removing well-sourced information. Thank you. Sincerely TylerDurden8823 ( talk)
I will not be told how to write whatever it is I have to say. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from posting on my talk page any further. If you do, rest assured it will not be read. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding User:Richiez/wiki-fref: what does {{ISBN xxx}} refer to? -- Gadget850 talk 22:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russophilia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slavic ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 20:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per policy, someone wishing to restore challenged content must provide an appropriate inline source. Please revert yourself [4] or provide the sourcing required by policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Van Wyk and Grumbach syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ovarian hyperstimulation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dorsolateral. Since you had some involvement with the Dorsolateral redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Richiez. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Richiez. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for helping to keep the content in the article on Dutroux up.-- Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 16:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Email: I am reading email but not nearly every day
This is Richiez's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
If you leave me a message here, I will respond here. Please do not leave talkbacks on my talkpage. |
Today is Sunday, April 28, 2024; it is now 06:34 ( UTC/ GMT)
Hello, Richiez, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
By the way, are you interested in Medicine? (I saw your edit at Inflammation. I'm an EMT, thinking about going to physician assistant school. Anyway, Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything.
Again, welcome! Peace, delldot | talk 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you have disputed my words on the Wilhelm Gustloff article. I assure you I have done extensive research on the tragedy and the aftermath. The words of Grass are opinions at best. Most people who know aboout the tragedy do believe that the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff was in fact a war crime, and hardly any of these people are on the far Right as Grass claims. This is supposed to be an information site, free from bias. I was merely stating the other side of the story, just without the citation some people, like you, would like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.203.38 ( talk) 07:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Inflammation is not infection, 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 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.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that
administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{
hangon}}
to the page and state your intention on the article's
talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
MarcoTolo 01:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I should have been a bit more bold, but I do not have the time to repair that, nor was I aware that particular citation style was outlawed, I just knew it wasn't correct. In either case, it'll be fixed. There's no problem. Khargas ( talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Richiez, it is my impression that you loathe robotic surgery and think that it is useless. You have every right to your opinion. Your point is that the long-term benefits of robotic surgery are yet to be proven. I agree with you. However, the immediate benefits are indisputable. Robotic hysterectomy has at least the same immediate benefits as total laparoscopic hysterectomy. The problem with total laparoscopic hysterectomy is that most GYN surgeons are not interested in performing it. This is why most hysterectomies are still performed open. And that is precisely the reason why robotic hysterectomy is growing so quickly.
Thank you very much for not deleting my work this time. Lisa11777 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, I think it might be good to move the discussion to the Hysterectomy talk page, it may be of more general interest.
I did read many promising things about robotic surgery and remain sceptical, some of the claims appear unrealistic and strangely made up comparisons. My impression is that time required for surgery is still excessively long and rate of complications comparable or only slightly better than for classical laparoscopic surgery. It does not really matter if this is because of the learning curve - the fact that not enough surgeons are good enough to perform it better than traditional surgery is very relevant for the patient. Keep in mind nobody would like to be a patient in the starting end of this tough learning curve. Another aspect - so far robotic surgery was performed mostly by top surgeons. Only time will show what happens when it "hits the streets".
Anyway, in a wikipedia article personal opinion should not matter that much. The article can have any kind of information if it is in the appropriate context. For robotic hysterectomy it should be clear in the article that it is an emerging and essentially unproven technique until it becomes more widely used and more data exists. We should not kill it and we should not promote it. There is so many other things that require loads of work in the article. Richiez ( talk) 14:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Previously you explained that robotic surgery has a tough learning curve and now you are trying to explain me how easy it is. Is it possible that a test drive is somewhat deceptive?
We are speaking about a technique which does not appear to have reached anything like 0.1% market share. Meanwhile it is not easy to finding reliable basic data for established procedures. You would think that with some 700,000 hysterectomies in the US it should be easy to find out something as trivial the mortality rates of the most frequent procedures. No way - the only thing that I found out after reading too many paper is that biggest mortality risk is beeing Medicare/Medicaid insured (HR 2.2-2.4).
Anyway, do you have suggestions what should be in the article? Actually there is so much that could be improved that I do not know where to start. Richiez ( talk) 21:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The 0.1% market share was my impression after reading a few dozen abstracts on medline. Do you have a source for your 10%? It was my impression that laparoscopy as whole has around 10-15% or less, much less robotic surgery. Also do not forget other parts of the world.
No I do not think it is a fad although the term "robotic surgery" is rather unfortunately chosen in my opinion.
Cholecystectomy or other kinds of surgeries may be a good indicator of things to come. But every new technique needs some time to find its place, sitautions when it is particularly good, bad or useless, data on counterindications, experience how to deal with problems, experience with training of staff. Richiez ( talk) 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. The figure is worldwide so that would give perhaps 0.5% market share. Maybe more in the US but I do not have the numbers. Not that market share would matter that much, the amount of good publications is more important. Richiez ( talk) 13:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. The figure is worldwide so that would give perhaps 0.5% market share. It may be a lot more impressive in the US but for whatever reason they choose to publish the worldwide figure.
Anyway, thanks for your suggestions. Regarding the WP article it is certainly possible to add more details about robotic surgery but some balance should be maintained - the other methods and sections could use plenty more details as well and atm they are still more important than robotic surgery. Richiez ( talk) 13:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The 1.8 mio hysterectomies worldwide estimate is wrong by several orders of magnitude. Richiez ( talk) 14:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a little common sense. 700,000 for a population of 240 mio. 1,100,000 (the rest) for a population of 6 billions? UK has a rate (per capita) close to the US, Germany and rest of Europe and Russia around 2/3 of it. This alone is more than your 1.8 mio and does completely ignore China, Africa, India and Southern America among others - approx 80% of world population and especially in China and Southern America they have not diminishing rates of hysterectomy. Under the assumption that rest of the world has 60% of the US rate you get 10,700,000 per year. You can tweak the numbers a bit but 1,800,000 is a joke. Richiez ( talk) 13:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
This does not lead anywhere and your US centric attitude is not wikipedia policy. If you want to include information about "market shares" of the different techniques try to find a single reputable source that lists the market shares of all variants for any particular industrial country. The information would be interesting to have but must pass reality checks. Most of the links you provided above do not pass any reality check. France and Germany have a hysterectomy rate that is 50-80% that of the US rate, not 4 times lower as some associate professor wants you to believe. Russia and much of eastern Europe were traditionally hyster-happy and this is changing only very slowly.
You think that I have something against robotic hysterectomy? Not really. If the US would convert to 100% robotic hysterectomies everyone would be happy: there would be 90% less hysterectomies because nobody could pay them and there are not enough surgeons who could perform them were they doing hysterectomies 24 hours a day. Health care providers would feel real economic pressure to improve on alternatives. The few women who would still have hysterectomies would have much better care and surgeons would get much more money for less hysterectomies. So go ahead and push it but wikipedia is not the platform for this. Richiez ( talk) 23:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this is getting ridiculous, you are implying things which I never wrote and incidentally are neither my opinion nor do I wish to discuss them. I see no point continuing this kind of discussion. If you think that I have introduced any bias into the article be more specific. It is hard to avoid noticing that all but one of your edits are about robotic surgery so you seem to have a great interest in that. Want to explain your motivation?
If you want to improve the article go ahead. Have a thorough look at relevant wikipedia policies and how some of the better medical articles in wikipedia are written. Its no secret that the hysterectomy article currently leaves much to be desired. Please respect that the kind of number juggling that is perfectly fine in talk pages should not appear in medical articles. If you want to claim that robotic surgery has a 5% market share worldwide find a source that says exactly this but its generally not acceptable to take controversial numbers from different sources and combine them to compute a market share. If DaVinci doesn't publish market share its their decision. Richiez ( talk) 12:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not against discussion of robotic surgery but not on my talk page. How about improving robotic surgery. Robotic surgery can also have its place in the hysterectomy article if it is in approximate proportion of significance - which is where the approximate market share would be interesting for me. It is not terribly useful to describe something that most women can not have as of today.
Its ok if you are interested in robotic surgery only but the hysterectomy article has more serious problems. I have my own special interests which you can easily see if you look at my contributions, in fact I only stepped in for the hysterectomy article because it was even more desolate than it is now. But apparently you did not care about the overal shape of the article as long as it contained your statement that robotic hysterectomy is the fastest growing thing? Richiez ( talk) 13:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine, at least I see what is your point. If you want a revolution wikipedia is not the platform of choice. Any blog or personal website is much better for that purpose. If you have an activist website there is even a chance that it could be linked from wikipedia.
Many laparotomies are indeed avoidable - almost all are avoidable in principle. Do not get carried away, many revolutions went wrong. There can not be a general recommendation for all cases. Today vaginal hysterectomy appears to be the best alternative in many cases - it may be robotic laparoscopy tomorrow. Progress is painfully slow and in retrospect you would wish many methods but especially medications had been tested even longer before they were unleashed. It is one of the problems in surgery that FDA approval procedure comparable to new drug evaluation is not required for most novelties. Robotic surgery had some evaluation because it introduced new tools but that is far from the scrutiny that new drugs have to pass.
One thing to keep in mind, all variants of hysterectomy are relatively safe and free of serious adverse effect short term. The long term effects is what causes much greater concerns and unfortunately data is completely lacking to be able to evaluate if some technique has advantages regarding some particular adverse long term effects. It looks so simple, a smaller cut or bigger cut, more or less blood but how does hysterectomy cause renal cell carcinoma? Is it true that laparoscopic procedures carry a greater risk for RCC than laparotomic?
The hysterectomy article can of course list all variants so women have a chance to educate themselves. The robotic section can be as big as you wish if you volunteer to improve the other sections so that it is not out of proportion and respect wikipedia style. My impression is that it would be better to improve the robotic surgery article and link it form hysterectomy.
Respecting wikipedia style is not tyranny. It should be obvious that if you would reinstate the paragraph in the style as I have deleted it a few times you gain absolutely nothing - people will only turn away in disgust thinking that this is the most primitive form of advertisement. Richiez ( talk) 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding my "bias" towards vaginal hysterectomy - I am trying to give a reasonable interpretation of the Cochrane Review which is linked from the article. Of course there are many problems with every approach but that is the best data I have. I tried to obtain more detailed data on various kinds of complications with various techniques. I found many and they all give inconsistent and conflicting views which makes me believe that the Cochrane review is the best data that I have seen so far.
Laparotomy gets away pretty good in my opinion, if it is not clear from the comparison section than I will amend it somehow. I am currently somewhat sceptical about laparoscopic hysterectomy, and before robotic surgery can demonstrate how much better it is than I am obviously taking it with some caution as well - a case of difficult parents.
It is not the matter whether I take it seriously, I am SciFi fan - but in a wikipedia article about medicine you can not make claims that have yet to be proven.
What is so wrong about the current description of robotic hysterectomy anyway? I think the only thing that can be improved is the technical description. You can add to its advantages in the comparison section as more data becomes available. I am cautious because of the usual pitfalls of comparing old methods with expensive technology like only top surgeons perform it, manufacturer sponsoring, economic pressure etc.
You think women should be educated which is right. The problem is there is not even enough data to educate them about the options that are widely available now.
I do wholeheartedly agree that there should be a table with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Obviously I had something like that on my mind when I started the comparison of techniques section. Did not get far - no data on long term outcome by technique, very limited data on mortality rates, only meaningful data on complications is the Cochrane report which is not enough to make a detailed table of complication by technique. For some variants not even the most basic data is available - how many LAVH procedures do US surgeons perform?
Also, "old" techniques are constantly evolving and what one surgeon can do with one technique another can do better with another.
What else is left? General wisdoms like length of surgery, hospital stay, approximately what is doable by which technique and trivia of that kind which someone of Mr Walids stuff is constantly pushing into this section to increase citation counts.
One particular problem is that much of data from the US is heavily blunted. In the US, beeing medicare/medicaid insured is the biggest independent mortality risk for hysterectomy (HR 2.9, http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/335/7/483). When you take into account which variants of surgery these women will receive in 99% of cases you know which one should come out shining best because medicare/medicaid patients almost never have a chance to get this.
Speaking of that there should be also a table of risk factors and the alternatives section needs to mention the 2 best available alternatives and provide comparisons. Richiez ( talk) 12:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you would read the sources that have been linked from the article for weeks now you would know that in some countries the great majority of surgeries is not by laparotomy (PMID 11319467). Richiez ( talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I am saying that the US is not the only state on the planet and something that is completely unheard of in your country is standard practice in other places. Imo it is very important to compare data from different regions and countries, the fact that some 65% of hysterectomies are by vaginal route could be certainly very interesting for many people as it clearly demonstrates how much laparotomy could be reduced. It would be also interesting to know why this is possible in France - wonder if it has anything to do with the strong self- and body- consciousness of French women but the article does not say anything about that. Richiez ( talk) 22:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I was never saying anything else. Also I am fine with your latest change.
Regarding the wildfire, I have not yet written the French vaginal hysterectomy part into the article. Of course it is ok to write both, in fact it would be very nice if there were a table listing a few countries and as many techniques as we can find data for. Table would be imho better than having this numbers/claims spreckled all around the place and getting outdated as things change.
Btw I hope you find good sources for your claim of a wildfire. The link from the manufacturer earnings conference is not well suited for a medical article, a statement from a major health provider or in the worst case an activist group or newspaper that does not directly quote the manufacturer would be much better.
I will be away for some time so play with it as you like. Richiez ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Good to know what your intention is. Richiez ( talk) 23:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Some friendly soul placed a few useful links on your talk page, among others the manual of style which links to the manual of style for medical articles and many others. If you follow these nothing can go wrong. There is also about a hundred pages about sources, citations and related issues. Each of those has talk pages where you can ask for help. And whoever placed it there did really mean that you should read it and understand it before you start editing articles. You can educate people but wikipedia has rules how that can be done.
And please stop getting silly. Richiez ( talk) 01:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Please look at the help pages you have been provided with and ask for help at the respective talk pages.
I have never claimed that the article is my property and I am open to criticism. However this is not a constructive discussion and I will stop replying to your comments until you change attitude.
You can safely ignore me, wikipedia is not my property. Others will keep an eye on you and enforce Wikipedia rules.
Once again, this place is not for advocacy. It is much easier to get a personal webpage where you can publish anything you like.
If you think I am unfair ask for help, wikipedia has rules and guidelines for it and someone will love to help you. I will completely ignore all your comments and if I see any disruptive editing or other bad behavior I will ask some experienced administrator to take care of the problem.
Hi Richiez,
Thanks for your contribution to the Optimal decision article. It's not entirely clear to me what the phrase "An optimal decision in nondeterministic systems is is the decision with the best utility/risk ratio." that you added refers to. If you by "nondeterministic system" mean a system with uncertain outcome (such as described further on in the article), the optimal decision is as I see it a decision such that no other available decision options will on aveage lead to a better outcome (according to whatever system of rating goodness is used). The utility/risk ratio is only one particular such goodness measure, and I cannot see how it is better suited for nondeterministic systems unless you mean expected utility/risk ratio.
Best wishes,
-- Winterfors ( talk) 18:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. That is what I would have done intuitively but I hoped there would be a "canned" and mathematically usable formulation for all that. Assigning infinite negative utilities for risks is problematic - we have a more or less arbitrary defined utility mapping (such as -inf for certain risks) while the probability density and the set or continuum of choices may be physically defined. Such models require special attention otherwise they do not mix well.
Expected utility hypothesis should probably be linked from the article? It has a nubmber of links such as risk aversion and prospect theory which I consider interesting alternatives to your definition as they try accomodate psychological factors like overestimating highly improbable large risks - even if that means that the resulting choice may not be optimal in a mathematical sense anymore.
Still, neither elaborates the "avoid certain risk at all cost" scenario particularly well. Richiez ( talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
--- block/unblock details removed ---
I am behind the NAT of my provider and have no influence which IP I will be assigned and several dozens maybe hundreds of users typically share IPs in this range. I have no idea why the user has been IP blocked but it is pure coincidence if he has been assigned the same IP like me. Richiez ( talk) 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
fyi: it:Discussioni utente:Xqt #Interwiki links for Analgesia and Farmaci antalgici - Xqt ( talk) 16:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at WP:DERM, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can send the login information to you if interested? Regardless, thanks for your help on Wikipedia! --- kilbad ( talk) 20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The edit to which you refer is suggested by AWB and one I typically go along with. It doesn't result in any visible change to the article, but saves file space, makes source code easier to read, and, as you point out, is easier to type. See Wikipedia:Wikilink#piped_links. -- LilHelpa ( talk) 22:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually no. Got basic information through google and worldcat search:
Trying to find someone at Tilburg Netherlands who could bring me at least copies of a few front pages and the content quoted by Dr. Alexandra Colen.-- Remind me never ( talk) 00:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It is being suggested that there is a consensus now on the use of 'uncircumcision', and editors have 24 hours to register their view on this. Your input would be appreciated. - MishMich - Talk - 00:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
We should go by what the ref says rather than adding our own analysis. PMID: 7473816 says "Taken together, these well-established risk factors accounted for approximately 47% (95% CI = 17%-77%) of breast cancer cases in the NHEFS cohort and about 41% (95% CI = 2%-80%) in the U.S. population." Thus this is what we should have IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. --- kilbad ( talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the structure of the Code. For that, see Code of Canon Law. Thanks and God bless! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 16:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Richiez, can you recommend a specific revisionID of the breast cancer article for us to use in the Version 0.8 release? We're trying to wrap things up now. Many thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 02:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC). Also, do you think this version of the Atorvastatin article is OK? Someone just added a paragraph in the "adverse effects" section which looks very reasonable and balanced, but I know such things are often controversial - can you take a look? Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 02:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The length of the article is irrelevant. All information must be sourced reliably, avoid weasel words and be notable in nature.
"While human males may have frequently wished and attempted to breastfeed babies documented cases are exceedingly rare and may involve pathologic conditions."
The statement is POV as it is pejorative by saying "frequently wished" and "may involve pathological conditions" these are weasel worded and subjective. There are no sources backing up the claim and the whole phrase is badly worded and unverified. It could just be that you have added because that is what you think which is not how the works. Please see WP:notable WP:POV WP:verify and WP:weasel, for what can and cannot be included in an article. This statement wholly misses all of those points and fails to meet the standards for inclusion. -- Lucy-marie ( talk) 22:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The ref says "Our findings suggest that moderate physical activity, including brisk walking, may reduce postmenopausal breast cancer risk and that increases in activity after menopause may be beneficial." Thus we should say something similar. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Richiez,
Thank you for giving me some constructive criticism on my edit on Hypothyroidism. I will work with the existing articles next time for citations.
Regards, Ellen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen Ada Goldberg ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Richiez,
Thanks for extending a welcome. I'm all for working together harmoniously.
I came to Wikipedia from a forum that discusses hypogonadism, where some individuals wanted to lower their prolactin based on the statements that you've authored. They blindly believed that men should have a prolactin level of 2-4 ng / mL, simply because you said so.
I have nothing against you (I don't even know you), I'm just a bit flabbergasted by your insistence that I not update this unsourced information that I've repeatedly shown is incorrect. You insist that normal prolactin levels are between 2-4 ng / mL, and yet you cannot find a source to back it up. I've shown you two medical journal articles involving over a thousand subjects that establish this value to be much higher, at 10-11 ng / mL. Furthermore, I've shown you three medical journal articles that detail how prolactin at levels below 5 ng / mL actually are associated with pathology such as infertility and the metabolic syndrome. By preventing me from updating, not only are you in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines, you could actually be misinforming people in such a way that could ultimately be harmful to their health, as is the case with the forum I previously mentioned. I find this very frustrating.
Speaking of Wikipedia's guidelines, I would like to point out that your editing etiquette is quite nonstandard. For example, when you are the author of unsourced statements, and you insist upon their inclusion despite evidence that they are incorrect, then you are guilty of original research (see WP:NOR). By preventing anyone from updating your information, you are guilty of ownership ( WP:OWN). By deleting the section entirely instead of letting someone update the incorrect information with sourced information, you're doing a little of both. I'm not stating this to personally attack you, I'm simply identifying what is happening.
I actually do assume that you are acting in good faith; you obviously believe strongly that you are right, and that you are providing good information. However, the information is simply inaccurate, and in this case, downright harmful. I hope you can see where I am coming from, and you take the time to work with me and read the sources that I've provided you. StructureWiki ( talk) 23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thus moved down and put more common methods first. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder: [1]. It's been a year, so I thought you might have forgotten. Best, :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Charmingworry". The reason given for Charmingworry's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigatio
Accept reason: Autoblock lifted. Closedmouth ( talk) 16:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do not ever autoblock this IP range. It is a dynamic address of a large provider and the culprit will get a new address in another range next he connects to the internet. It does however have the potential to affect many innocent users. Richiez ( talk) 16:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Added WSJ refs to article. IP comes from UAE, natch. [2] Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The interaction with Statins deserves a place in the lead. If Weingaertner specifically says the health claims were misleading, that contention should be spelled out in the body text, not just mentioned in passing in the lead. The term misleading implies (at least to my ear) a deliberate deception rather than an over-optimistic hypothesis. As with any controversial issue, countervailing opinions in credible sources should also be noted. Dankarl ( talk) 13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.
This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets ( extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.
We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!
I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.
Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.
Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org.
Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 01:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the note. I came across a paper relating uterine fibroids to renal cell cancer and since this seemed to be (1) important and (2) not present on the wiki page it seemed as worthwhile addition. However 'the tale grew with the telling' and Im inclined to agree with you. Im not sure if there is enough material to justify its own article. I do know how many stubs (at least vaguely) there are in WP and I'm not sure I really want to add to their number without reasonable justification. Do you think it justifies its own article based on its current length or not? If not have you any ideas on how it should be worked into the current one? DrMicro ( talk) 19:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added a little more to this section. Having thought about this a little more and with the additional material I am inclined to agree with you that this is now too much for this section and probably deserves a page of its own. I will get around to creating this shortly. DrMicro ( talk) 07:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the familial uterine fibroids. I concur with you over the Mesh system for rare diseases - its not the easiest to determine what to place in the infoboxes. DrMicro ( talk) 11:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The new version of the statement of treatment is an improvement. However as I have said on the talk page I am unaware of any studies showing a significantly increased risk of malignancy over that in sporadic cases. If you are aware of such a study I would be most grateful if you could reference it. DrMicro ( talk) 11:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I agree that the position is unclear at present and that this condition should be kept under review. DrMicro ( talk) 15:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for the message which you left on my userpage today (Wednesday 16 May 2012) on the references related to magnesium - I thought at first you might also be advising me with references relating to osteoporosis (you may notice that I have left some references on the talk page of the article on osteoporosis). I have not read the reference to the Wikipedia guidelines on medical sources in depth yet (I just had a quick glance at it) but it will, I am sure, prove helpful. Once again, thank you for your help, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 14:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Richiez. I started a section on the Vagina talk page about your recent changes. See Talk:Vagina#Changes about anatomy and sexual activity. [3] Flyer22 ( talk) 19:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I posted a new section at Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases#Does 'Third Reich 1933-1945' really belong here, which you might be informed on. You were engaged in the issue in the past and I's like to see if there is any consensus on how to move forward. Insomesia ( talk) 04:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
- I have been hit by "open proxy" block by User:Dennis_Brown - all I get is "Editing from 82.113.122.166 has been blocked (disabled) by Dennis Brown for the following reason(s):
Open proxy".
This is a known issue - large mobile operator with NAT and needs to be finally whitelisted. Absolutely no open proxy because as mentioned this is behind a NAT. Richiez ( talk) 13:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Block message:
IP/open proxy block
Accept reason: It looks top me as though you are probably right, but to make sure I have asked for a check at
Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests, as well as consulting the blocking administrator. Sorry that you are (yet again) being inconvenienced in this way. I hope itcan be cleared up soon.
JamesBWatson (
talk) 14:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Richiez ( talk) 13:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.
Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.
Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. James F. (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
If you check the history and also the redirect target you'll see why I redirected it. The article was started by the proprietor of a company making breast thermography equipment, and breast thermography is being touted as a quack diagnostic tool for breast cancer. This is reasonably complex and is covered in detail in the redirect target, to do it twice would involve substantial redundancy - especially since the same conflicted individual also made substantial changes to Thermography (medical) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), also in support of his business interests. "Thermography has been around for many years, and some scientists are still trying to improve the technology to use it in breast imaging. But no study has yet shown that it is an effective screening tool for finding breast cancer early. It should not be used as a substitute for mammograms." American Cancer Society (emphasis added). And you'll see from the article histories that this is precisely what it's being promoted for here. Don't be confused by the redlinked user page, see here. Guy ( Help!) 13:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi thanks for working with me. I worked over the section. The expansion of the lede became essay-like with the speculative, unsourced screening/treatment plans, and the other matter was redundant. I think it flows better now. Jytdog ( talk) 14:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou for notifying me of
WP:MEDRS. I didn't know about it. I just added the link as there wasn't a link referring to "Mirena". Sorry about that.
--
Inlandmamba (
fruitful thought) 15:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Part of the definition of gynecomastia is that it is enlargement of the male glandular breast tissue. It is not referring to the enlargement of breast tissue in females. Please see here ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19880691) and here: ( http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2276281) Early breast development in girls is known as premature thelarche. Also, please do not remove well-sourced information such as the concept that neonatal gynecomastia is from the maternal transfer of placental hormones. If there is anything you should have gathered from our discussion, it is that it may be a correct, albeit an incomplete explanation for it. This means you should add to it, not remove it and it is acceptable for things to be repeated in different sections in a wikipedia article. That information belongs in the causes or pathophysiology section and it deserves brief mention in the epidemiology section since it is self-limited. Please refrain from further changes like this or discuss them on the talk page before removing well-sourced information. Thank you. Sincerely TylerDurden8823 ( talk)
I will not be told how to write whatever it is I have to say. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from posting on my talk page any further. If you do, rest assured it will not be read. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding User:Richiez/wiki-fref: what does {{ISBN xxx}} refer to? -- Gadget850 talk 22:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russophilia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slavic ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 20:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per policy, someone wishing to restore challenged content must provide an appropriate inline source. Please revert yourself [4] or provide the sourcing required by policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Van Wyk and Grumbach syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ovarian hyperstimulation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dorsolateral. Since you had some involvement with the Dorsolateral redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Richiez. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Richiez. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for helping to keep the content in the article on Dutroux up.-- Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 16:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)